The Sun had to have its two cents and it makes me so livid I can hardly see straight. A lot of my friends on Twitter are saying the same thing.

Glenn Greenwald thinks Rowling has no right to say she was abused.

The man is scum.

They are such shameless liars.

At Trump’s roundtable, attorney general Bill Barr says, “We’ve never had a president who’s more committed to reforming law enforcement.”

Fact check: The Trump administration abandoned Obama-era police reform efforts, which had included civil rights investigations into local police agencies with documented records of abuse and problems. “Police departments are not investigated under this administration,” Christy Lopez, who led the justice department group investigating police departments under Obama, recently told the Washington Post.

The roll-back of Obama’s efforts began under attorney general Jeff Sessions.

Let’s make the police worse again, guys.

See?

This is what his Tulsa “speech on race” (if that is what he’s doing in Tulsa next week) will be like. He’ll read it haltingly and clumsily, tilting his head back and forth for no reason, in a flat croaking voice that makes it clear that he has no idea what he’s saying or why he’s saying it. And he’ll say “it” will go very easily and quickly and easily. Yes, certainly, and that’s why we haven’t done it all this time.

There’s much buzz about Trump’s oh so tactful selection of Tulsa, famous for a race riot, and Juneteenth, famous for the end of slavery, as the place and time for his first rally in months.

The selection of Tulsa as the place where Trump returns to the stump and the date on which he is choosing to do it both suggest that Trump’s long-whispered-about race speech — in the wake of ongoing protests and unrest following the death of George Floyd — will happen next Friday, and at a campaign rally no less.

A “race speech” by Trump. Dear god. It makes me want to solder my ears shut.

Tulsa was the site of one of the most vicious acts of racial violence in American history when, in 1921, a mob of white people attacked a section of the city known as Greenwood or “Black Wall Street” and murdered hundreds of African Americans…And June 19, which has become commonly known and celebrated as Juneteenth, or Emancipation Day, commemorates the anniversary of the reading of the General Orders, No. 3, which officially informed slaves that they were free.

What can Trump possibly say, what finger can he possibly point, what invisible accordion can he possibly play, that will be of any interest or value? We already know he has nothing but simmering resentment at best toward black people, and we already know that his self-presentation is that of a bad insult comic. We know he has no knowledge or understanding of the history or the issues. We know he doesn’t give a shit. We know he’s repeatedly gone out of his way to express his animosity toward black people and anti-racism. What can he say that anyone but the boogaloo crowd wants to hear?

Maybe that’s not his plan, maybe I’m overestimating his advisors – maybe his plan is to go there to shout racist slurs and start the second Tulsa Race Riot.

“The African American community is very near and dear to his heart,” said White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Thursday of Trump’s planned Tulsa rally on Juneteenth. “He’s working on rectifying injustices. … So it’s a meaningful day to him and it’s a day where wants to share some of the progress that’s been made as we look forward and more that needs to be done.”

And goats can fly and cars can be milked and Jared Kushner is a genius.

Classic.

Come to my rally during a pandemic to gratify my ego and help my effort to get another four years to destroy this country and maybe the world, and also sign this waiver saying that if the pandemic gets you at my rally it will bye YOUR FAULT and not mine.

Who could resist an offer like that?

Milley says that walk with Trump was wrong.

The top US military officer says he was wrong to have joined President Donald Trump during his controversial walk to a damaged church near the White House.

The 1 June event created “a perception of the military involved in domestic politics”, Gen Mark Milley said.

It sure as hell did, and that’s what fake-warrior Trump intended. Captain Bone Spurs wanted to walk his sorry cheeseburger ass up to that church with some SOJERS so that everyone would think he’s a warrior too instead of the blathering whining two scoops of ice cream couch potato he is.

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was speaking in a video for a National Defense University commencement ceremony.

Oh was he! That’ll sting. That’ll get Captain Bone Spurs really mad.

He said: “I should not have been there. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics. As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it.”

Gen Milley added: “We must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military that is so deeply rooted in the very essence of our republic.”

…

The general was wearing battle uniform as he walked with the president and critics said this suggested his support for the deployment of the military against protesters.

Just a tad.

Helen Saxby on Rowling and truth:

Speaking the truth about sex is becoming more and more difficult because of accusations of transphobia, and yet much of the reaction to Rowling’s tweet was just angry that she had highlighted this fact. We’re not allowed to say sex is real, but we’re doubly not allowed to say that we’re not allowed to say it. Many people suggested that Rowling was deliberately misrepresenting the truth. ‘Nobody is saying sex isn’t real!’ was a common refrain, presumably because being caught out saying sex isn’t real would make you look stupid. Trans allies want to deny sex exists but to do it in a sort of secret way without the fact being brought out into the cold light of day for examination.

They want to do it but they don’t want us pointing out that they’re doing it. That seems fair!

By the same token, they want to call us bitches and cunts and stinking holes, but they don’t want us to say they’re doing that and that it’s misogyny. Don’t name the problem, be the problem, yeh?

If we weren’t one of two sexes we would not be able to reproduce sexually, and that’s what the human species does.

…

It’s just biology. Biology is difference, it is exclusive, it has boundaries, it’s the truth. But are we allowed to name it?

…

But if, when the situation demands it, you do have to tell the truth about someone’s sex, then the correct trans ally response is to deny the sex. Sex suddenly is not real anymore. Situations which demand the truth are those such as equality law, sex-segregated sports, hostels, refuges and changing rooms, because in these areas sex really matters. Sex forms the basis of women’s rights. But suddenly this man in front of you, with a female gender identity, who you were happy to treat politely, is now literally a woman, no debate. If you don’t treat his gender identity as if it were his sex you are a transphobic bigot. Sex denialism serves to replace sex with gender when it’s expedient to do so, so that gender, in a sleight of hand, becomes sex, to all intents and purposes. If you notice the sex (and lots of women do notice) you are hateful. If you don’t notice, it will be used as proof there is no harm in letting males into female spaces, despite the fact that a woman’s boundaries have still been breached without her consent. The ethics of this are not to be discussed.

And if you try to discuss it, stand back while the flood of “cunt!” and “stinking hole!” comes pouring over you.

Reciting the mandatory “trans women are women,” Helen points out, is saying that sex isn’t real.

Transwomen by definition have to be male. Women by definition have to be female. The only way the mantra could be true is if you believe women come in both male and female varieties. If you do believe this, then you also have to believe that ‘single-sex spaces’ must accommodate two sexes, and at the same time that they must retain the name ‘single-sex’. This tortuous redefinition of commonly-understood words is crucial because otherwise you would have to admit that trans demands are impinging on women-only services, and the official line is that there is no conflict of interest.

How does “cis” fit into this redefinition project?

Transwomen are not, of course, adult human females. If they were they wouldn’t be trans. It’s just a way of hiding the fact that you’re saying women come in male and female varieties, a necessary camouflage when you don’t want anyone to notice you’re talking rubbish. The promoted way of avoiding this fate is to divide women up into ‘cis’ and ‘trans’, cis being the female women and trans being the male women. If you accept the categorisation ‘cis’ you accept that women come in both male and female varieties, and you are saying biology isn’t real. You also contribute to the negative consequences for women when ‘cis’ becomes weaponised as a sign of privilege over ‘trans’. JK Rowling is not just a wealthy white woman for the purpose of discrediting her opinion, but a wealthy white cisgendered woman, thus neatly putting women into the position of oppressors of men.

I think the way it works is that if a woman is white and cis she is also necessarily a Karen and that’s three strikes and she goes to the very top of the intersectional pole, oppressing everyone.

JK Rowling expressed concerns about the effects on women if we are coerced into believing that sex isn’t real. Many of the vile and offensive replies to her tweets illustrated the fact that sex differences are very real when it comes to insulting women. In the treatment of JK Rowling there was a very clear pattern of sexualised abuse from men that many women will recognise from experience.

Yep. I was surprised at how very familiar it was. How stupid of me – of course it’s familiar. There are only so many ways of expressing disgust and loathing of women, why would I think any of it would be original?

JK Rowling has been very brave. No matter what her personal wealth or privilege, she speaks for a huge number of women who don’t have a voice or stand to lose too much by using it. The lack of empathy for women who have suffered sexual or domestic violence seems to be growing as the most vocal advocates for trans demands stoop to painting even rape victims as bigots. How cold-hearted do you have to be to hear the intimate disclosure of sexual abuse from a former friend, colleague or mentor, and use it to publicly distance yourself from her and reinforce your credentials with your fan base?

Then she shares Emma Watson’s horrible treacherous tweet.

This should be a thing.

A group of women MPs and charities are urging the government to treat misogyny as a hate crime within the government’s new domestic abuse laws.

Their amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill would require all police forces to record and track crimes motivated by misogyny.

Those two sentences say two different things. Tracking misogynist motivation for crimes is not the same as making misogyny itself a crime. That’s quite an important distinction, don’t you think? Sloppy wording not helpful.

A statement from Citizens UK and the coalition of campaigners – including Refuge and Women’s Aid – says this approach will “not create any new crimes but would provide critical data on the link between hostility to women and the abuse and harassment women experience”.

They managed to make the distinction clear, I don’t see why the BBC couldn’t do the same.

Labour MP Ms Creasy said it was “time for change”, adding: “Misogyny is so much part of everyday life that we overlook the harm it does – at the expense of tackling the root causes of violence against women.”

Ain’t that the truth.

Lib Dem MP Ms Jardine said: “Misogyny in far too many instances remains unnoticed and unrecorded. “We must do everything in our power to tackle violence against women, and the requirement to record misogynistic crime and how it interacts with domestic abuse is a key step to tackling gender inequality.”

Yes, yes it is.

We will never surrender!

CNN has more information:

Hundreds of protesters marched into Seattle’s City Hall late Tuesday, calling for Durkan to step down after police continued to use chemical irritants to disperse crowds — despite the mayor’s 30-day ban on tear gas that she announced Friday.

Led by city council member Kshama Sawant, the protesters peacefully marched from Capitol Hill to City Hall, where Sawant allowed the protesters inside the building, CNN’s affiliate KOMO reported. Protesters left the building around 10:30 p.m. local time, and Seattle police did not report any arrests.

Durkan’s office responded late Tuesday in a statement to KOMO, saying the mayor “will not be distracted from the critical work that needs to be done at a moment that Seattle is facing its most challenging time in its history.

Well, its recent history. I think it’s had some pretty challenging times in less recent history, what with world wars and fires and earthquakes and general strikes.

“As the person who originally investigated the Seattle Police Department for the unconstitutional use of force, Mayor Durkan believes that SPD can lead the nation on continued reforms and accountability, but knows this week has eroded trust at a time when trust is most crucial,” the statement read.

Protesters have also camped out and occupied the area outside Seattle police’s East Precinct building in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, which protesters are now calling the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

Contrary to online rumors, Seattle officials say they have no indication that the occupied area is being coordinated by left-wing activist groups under the umbrella of Antifa.

Capitol Hill is the hipster neighborhood in Seattle. Having an occupied area around the closed police precinct there does not equal a takeover of the whole city, to put it mildly. Trump’s frothing is completely absurd.

Updating to add: CNN reports that Assistant Police Chief Deanna Nollette says police had received reports that protesters allegedly set up barricades, “with some armed individuals running them as checkpoints into the neighborhood.” That’s four levels of meta – reports, says, received reports, allegedly, so make of that what you will. The right-wing gun-brandishers do it where there are cameras, proudly, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t barricades and armed individuals in Capitol Hill.

Now Trump is threatening to invade Seattle.

I look forward to the arrival of thousands of heavily armed troops from the Bureau of Prisons and ICE and the army and the marines to take over Seattle and put us all under martial law.

I’m looking out the window. I’m not seeing the takeover.

Another actor who has fame and fortune entirely because of Joanne Rowling but chooses to turn her back on her in public anyway.

And, again, the claim is a crock of shit. The formula “trans people are who they say they are” is true (but obvious) if she means trans people are trans people if they say they are, but it’s not true if she means (as of course she does) that trans people are the sex they are not if they say they are. I’m not a llama if I say I am, you’re not an armchair if you say you are, they’re not the delegation from Planet Remulac if they say they are. Saying isn’t a guarantee of truth. Saying is just saying. Other things being equal, sure, we trust what people tell us unless we have a reason not to, but that does not translate to a rule that people are what they say they are, no questions asked, period, you’re an evil demon if you disagree.

Trump is all worked up about the sacrilegious idea that we can rename military bases that were named after Confederate military “heroes.”

The Great American Heritage of slavery and official, deliberate, detailed racial persecution and oppression – I think we can rename things as a way to reject that heritage. I think it’s more than slightly disgusting that Donald Trump wants us to cling to that heritage.

Aaron Blake at the Post:

In tweets early Wednesday afternoon, Trump argued against changing the names of bases like Fort Bragg, Fort Hood and Fort Benning — all of which are named after Confederate generals. In doing so, though, he referenced the United States’s history of winning.

“These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom,” Trump said, adding, “Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.”

Yehbut Bragg, Hood and Benning were all Confederate generals, and they…lost. So not so much part of a history of Winning then!

Cities and states across the country in recent years have removed Confederate statues, for instance, as well as taken Confederate names off of schools, streets, parks and holidays. NASCAR on Wednesday afternoon announced it would ban Confederate flags at its events.

NASCAR did??? Stone the crows.

If NASCAR can, surely Trump can.

She’s angry, and rightly so.

Another Do it to Julia.

Fantastic Beasts star Eddie Redmayne has joined Harry Potter lead actor Daniel Radcliffe in criticising JK Rowling’s recent comments about trans people.

In a statement to Variety magazine, Redmayne said: “Respect for transgender people remains a cultural imperative, and over the years I have been trying to constantly educate myself.”

Why is it a cultural imperative? And what does he mean by “respect” anyway? And why is he implying that JK Rowling is disrespecting trans people?

Redmayne, who in 2015 starred in The Danish Girl, a biopic of Lili Elbe, one of the first known recipients of sex reassignment surgery, added: “As someone who has worked with both JK Rowling and members of the trans community, I wanted to make it absolutely clear where I stand. I disagree with Jo’s comments. Trans women are women, trans men are men and nonbinary identities are valid.”

Well thank fuck he’s spent years educating himself so that he can come up with that deeply thoughtful and incisive formula which we’ve only heard a billion times before. Also, the first two are false and the third is meaningless.

Anyway, thanks for ticking the box, movie guy.

White privilege something something JK Rowling something tethered to something.

Yet, as the inequity of capitalism and its inextricable link to white privilege are brought into focus, JK Rowling instead devoted her enormous Twitter platform to discussing the use of gender-neutral terms last Saturday night.

She what? She chose her own subject to talk about at a particular moment? How shocking! Of course so did most people on Twitter, but, you know – any stick to beat a woman with.

The timing of her social media tirade is telling. In the context of a collective reckoning with how our economic, political and social systems have dehumanised black lives for centuries, it seemed the fantasy-writer turned billionaire had decided an equally pressing issue was making grand claims about the estimated 1 per cent of the population who identify as trans.

It wasn’t a tirade. It was a woman saying some things. It’s funny how men always think women are doing most of the talking when in reality they’re doing about 20%. (There are studies on it.) By the same token, if a woman talks at all, it must be a tirade. Women not supposed to talk, ok?

Transphobia is tethered to the malign structures of white supremacy. 

No it isn’t. That’s just jargon, and it’s not true. Furthermore, what Rowling is saying is not “transphobia.”

So, as we harness this political moment to dismantle centuries of inherited racism, we also have a duty to understand its relationship with the kind of discourse that is, quite frankly, making life hell for trans people.

Do we? Wouldn’t that be changing the subject? Do genuine anti-racism activists actually want to change the subject that way?

Also, if we must change the subject, what about the subjection of women? What about that discourse? Why are trans people the cool kids who are welcome to usurp anti-racism while women are just transphobes who have to be shut up?

The whole piece is dreck and the Independent should be embarrassed for publishing it.

Sigh.

Rowling writes about her reasons, starting by explaining why she is interested in trans issues.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

She didn’t expect the avalanche, because we don’t see much of this kind of thing, and we don’t see much of it because…of that very climate of fear. People are afraid to say it in public because they don’t want the inevitable monstering. We’re caught in this horrible loop. If we point out the horrible loop we are instantly told all about our crusty dusty stinking holes.

[A]ccusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

…

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else they will be told they are Karens, bitches, cunts, whores, stinking dusty dried-up holes.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much.  It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

And I’m just not going to do that. I can’t, and I also don’t want to. I can’t because it isn’t true and I see no way I can convince myself it is true…especially since I don’t want to in the first place.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

And the activists’ way of persuading us otherwise? To spit degrading slurs at us! To rant and rave that we stink, we’re crusty, we’re dusty, we need to shut our crusty dusty lips.

It’s funny, in a way (not really haha funny) that they do this, because it betrays the fact that men (all too many of them at least) have a visceral disgust and loathing for women despite wanting to fuck them. Ooh that creepy hole, the one we all get pushed out of, the one straight men like to put their dicks in, but at the same time the one that…who knows…maybe it has toads in it, or rats, or maggots, or razor blades, or rotting smelly fish. Maybe we could genetically engineer it to get away from the horror? Make it smell of lavender or orange peel or cedar shavings?

Just one from Rebecca’s compilation yesterday:

What I wonder now is how people who see themselves as progressive, woke, pro social justice, on the left, reconcile that with the whole “cunt bitch whore skank does ur pussy stink” theme.

I mean I really wonder, not just I say it rhetorically and move on. I really wonder and I would love to know. A lot of former friends of mine who were targets of abuse of exactly that kind, and did not for a second see it as progressive or woke in any way – how do they line these things up in their heads?

Good, Rebecca’s post collecting a sample of the abuse leveled against Rowling is getting attention.

The Washington Post:

Chinese authorities have been trying for three years to reverse the devastating imbalances of their one-child policy and coax couples to have more children.

Trying and failing. The birthrate remains low and – plot twist! – there are far more men than women.

Eh, what? Why’s that? A low birthrate doesn’t equal more men being…oh wait yes it does. If you can only have one it HAS to be a male, amirite? Nobody nobody NOBODY wants an only child who is a [retch gag puke] female. (Why not? Well, come on, I ask you – they’re so disgusting – they do all that gross pregnancy stuff and then milk-producing stuff. Ew. Men are clean and tidy.)

But now, an economics professor at Fudan University in Shanghai has come up with another — and, unsurprisingly, controversial — solution: allow women to have multiple husbands, and they will have multiple babies.

Oh they will, will they. Is he sure about that? Women who wanted no more than one child will automatically want one per husband if they decide to have several? Dream on, bro.

In China today, home to 1.4 billion people, there are 100 million only-children under the age of 40. But the traditional preference for sons — and the associated practice of aborting girls — means that there are about 34 million more men than women.

Oops.

So they prevent about 34 million women from existing, and then they want existing women to make up the slack by pushing out more babies for them. That’s a big NOPE, comrade.

His suggestion to solve the oversupply of men is to allow involuntary bachelors — known as “bare branches” in Chinese because they cannot bear fruit for their family tree — to share the relatively scarce supply of women.

Yes but women aren’t a “supply” and women are not things for real people to “share” among themselves. Thanks anyway.

Plus, it would just be more efficient, he continued, suggesting that women would have no trouble meeting the physical needs of multiple husbands.

Sure. They can just lie there. What difference does it make if it’s one or ten?

“It’s common for prostitutes to serve more than 10 clients in a day,” Ng wrote, before taking off on another offensive tangent. “Making meals for three husbands won’t take much more time than for two husbands,” he added.

How about twenty? Fifty? Let’s get really efficient.

Ng is steeling for a fight. He wrote that his next column aimed at redressing gender imbalances would be about legalizing brothels.

Because China’s gender mismatch has caused a fierce competition among men looking for wives, he said, “a man’s right to achieving sexual satisfaction is being severely violated if legal sex work is not allowed.”

Heyyyyyyyy, that’s what Amnesty International says! Also Elliot Rodger, also incels on Twitter shouting at women for existing.

RR-C did some collecting – just a small sample, she says. It’s all screenshots, no text. It’s thematic – the themes are

1. shut the fuck up
2. cunt
3. hag
4. suck my dick
5. slag / whore / tart
6. disgust – stink, dried up, stench
7. smack, punch, piss in her cold dead eyes

Do they do this to, say, Graham Linehan? Not that I’ve seen.