Women are being ordered to wheesht about that man taking a woman’s place at the Olympics.

Former Olympic weightlifter Tracey Lambrechs says females are being told to “be quiet” when they complain about the [un]fairness of transgender New Zealand athlete Laurel Hubbard competing in women’s competitions.

…

“I’m quite disappointed, quite disappointed for the female athlete who will lose out on that spot,” Lambrechs, who won a bronze medal for New Zealand at the 2018 Commonwealth Games, told TVNZ.

And not just disappointed, but also angry at the injustice of it. But wheesht.

“We’re all about equality for women in sport but right now that equality is being taken away from us.

“I’ve had female weightlifters come up to me and say, ‘what do we do? This isn’t fair, what do we do?’. Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do because every time we voice it we get told to be quiet.”

So, piling injustice on injustice. Doing it to them and then telling them to shut up when they try to talk about it.

In a statement on Thursday, the IOC said that while committed to inclusion, it was currently reviewing its guidelines to take into account the “perceived tension between fairness/safety and inclusion/non-discrimination”.

“Inclusion” isn’t a value at events like the Olympics – not “inclusion” meaning all shall win, all shall have prizes. The Olympics is a contest, and it’s about as exclusive as it gets. Laurel Hubbard shouldn’t be “included” in the women’s weightlifting competition, because he’s not a woman.

Australia’s weightlifting federation sought to block Hubbard from competing at the 2018 Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast but organisers rejected the move.

Because it’s only women who will lose out, so that doesn’t matter.

Some new light, perhaps, on the dreaded Controversial Stickers in Kirkcaldy:

Kirkcaldy Police said – in a now deleted tweet – there was a report of a hate crime involving “controversial” stickers on lampposts in Viewforth Avenue on Monday May 17, and asked people to contact Fife Council so they could be removed.

Which, by the way, makes no sense. The police had already been told about the stickers, so why “ask people to contact Fife Council so that they could be removed”? Why not just go right on ahead and remove them themselves, without any further tattling from “people”?

However, officers have since said that no criminality was established following inquiries.

Why wasn’t that blindingly obvious to them from the outset?

The stickers promote the group For Women Scotland (FWS) and displayed hashtags including #waronwomen, #sexnotgender and #nopubertyblockers.

Susan Smith, director of For Women Scotland said the organisation, which was founded in 2018, did not produce or distribute the stickers.

It was probably Alger Hiss then.

Ms Smith said on Sunday: “For Women Scotland do not produce stickers, however, we know that many people express support for us and other women’s groups and we are very grateful.

“The images we have seen are of stickers which express the sentiment that women will not remain silent in conversations about our bodies or our rights.

“The idea that this is ‘controversial’ or requires investigation by the police is chilling.”

It comes after MSPs approved a new hate crime bill earlier this year.

It was created to simplify and clarify the law by bringing together various existing hate crime laws into a single piece of legislation.

Under the bill, offences are considered “aggravated” if they involve prejudice on the basis of age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity.

But not, I point out for the millionth time, sex. Offences are considered “aggravated” if they involve prejudice on the basis of transgender identity, but not if they involve prejudice on the basis of sex. Transgender identity matters, being female doesn’t.

Trans woman Dawn Ennis bullies a young female athlete on Twitter, because that’s what trans activism is all about, right?

How would Dawn Ennis know that? Even if we buy into the claim that men can become women by saying so, how can we or Dawn Ennis or anyone know that any particular men really mean it as opposed to doing it to gain an advantage? At any rate all his fact claims are stupid. Who says “those are the proper, non-bigoted terms”? People who have bought into the bullshit, that’s who. Women are women and men are not women. It’s not “bigoted” to say that.

Interesting reversal. It’s the woman who’s being unfair, the woman who is trying to win at the expense of others – not the two men who claim to be girls and then race against girls. You coulda fooled me.

All women, including those like me, who are men.

Horrible man. Horrible horrible bullying bully of a man.

Fortunately, some higher ups are now watching what Police Scotland are doing to Marion Millar.

Hand the keys over to Bev and Kate.

Stonewall, meanwhile, is taking the bratty route.

Siva Vaidhyanathan on UNC and Nikole Hannah-Jones and special insults:

When the prestigious Hussman School of Journalism at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – the oldest public university in North America – went searching for a Knight chair – funded by the Knight Foundation to promote journalism education by putting some of America’s finest practicing journalists in the classroom – a distinguished alumna of that school was the obvious choice.

Nikole Hannah-Jones is just such an alumna and just such a journalist.

It did not turn out as planned. On Tuesday we learned that conservative activists on the University of North Carolina board of trustees took the unprecedented step of withholding tenure from Hannah-Jones’ appointment as the next Knight chair. All the previous Knight chairs at the university had been hired with tenure. All the previous Knight chairs at North Carolina were white.

But that’s pure coincidence, right?

Unlike her white predecessors, Hannah-Jones will be offered a five-year term without tenure. This was a clear slap at her race, gender, prominence, and mostly her unwillingness to bow to critics. It denied her something she earned through hard work and years of practice. And it was a decision made without serious consideration of her contributions to the field.

But maybe she’s just average?

Over a career spanning 20 years, Hannah-Jones has won a National Magazine award, a Polk award, a Pulitzer prize, and a MacArthur grant. Hannah-Jones was elected in 2021 to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences – one of top honors a writer may achieve in America. Among other subjects Hannah-Jones has covered public education, demographics, Cuba, and civil rights.

As someone who spends each summer devouring piles of articles, books, and teaching records of scholars being considered for tenure at America’s finest universities – often candidates for tenure in journalism schools – I can attest that Hannah-Jones more than meets the criteria for tenure based on all of her journalistic work.

I’ll stop making sarcastic jokes and say it: conservatives are furious about the 1619 Project.

In 2019 Hannah-Jones oversaw a provocative and stirring account for the New York Times Magazine of the sweep of American history, placing its founding in 1619 with the introduction of slavery to North America. The collection of essays by historians, sociologists, activists, and journalists sparked debate among historians and re-assessment of curricula within high schools and colleges across the United States. By putting slavery and its legacy at the center of American history, the 1619 project echoes a strong and growing strain of scholarly work over the past 30 years. But it challenges the “consensus” story of US history that dominated most of the past 60 years of historiography.

But when you think about it why wouldn’t you put slavery at the center? It’s not a minor, peripheral aspect of our history.

[T]he 1619 project also sparked a furious blowback from conservatives who don’t like to be reminded that Black people are allowed to tell the story of America as well, and that history is always under revision as new knowledge emerges and new questions rise.

…

What the powers that be in North Carolina have not figured out is that their university needs Hannah-Jones more than she needs it. There are dozens of other universities that would gladly grant tenure to her and enlighten their students with her wisdom. She will be just fine. North Carolina, we can’t be so sure about.

They’ll still have tobacco.

Looks like piracy.

A Belarusian journalist and opposition activist is being held at an airport in Minsk after his Lithuania-bound flight was forced to land, opposition politicians and outlets said on Sunday.

Opposition figures swiftly criticized the move, which they said was a bid by the government of longtime leader Alexander Lukashenko to clamp down on critical voices.

The regime says it was a bomb scare, but one suspects it was a bomb scare in the sense that the regime yelled “bomb scare!!!” as it forced the plane to divert.

Press Release from Sex Matters:

Equality and Human Rights Commission cuts ties with Stonewall

Now there is a headline.

In a letter to the campaigning group “Sex Matters”, the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Kishwer Falkner has disclosed that the equalities watchdog has quit the Stonewall Diversity Champions Scheme. 

Yes yes YES.

Falkner was writing in response to an open letter sent by Sex Matters calling on the EHRC to quit the scheme. 

Sex Matters campaigns for clarity about sex in law and policy. It argues that membership of the Stonewall Scheme conflicts with public service independence and in particular with the EHRC’s mandate to protect everybody’s rights.  

Organisations that join the scheme pay Stonewall an annual fee and allow it to vet their internal policies, such as about who can use toilets and changing facilities, and what language to use when talking about men and women. Scheme members are encouraged to promote “gender self – identification”, to train all staff  to be “allies”, and to take steps such as encouraging people to announce their pronouns in meetings, and to wear rainbow lanyards. 

Encourage to promote “gender self-identification” – not just accept it or warn against persecuting it but promote it.

The news of EHRC leaving the Stonewall scheme comes in the same week as Essex University released the “Reindorf Review” investigation into the no-platforming of two feminist academics. 

Barrister Akua Reindorf found the university had adopted policies which reflect “the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is”, and created a “culture of fear”. A spokeswoman from Stonewall defended their policies as being “based on guidance provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”

Well let’s just go around that circle forever, shall we? Stonewall says the EHRC says it’s ok and the EHRC says Stonewall says it’s ok repeat repeat repeat forever. Be sure never to do any actual thinking.

But the EHRC has ditched them and that is the best news.

This has been around for at least a year, but I’ve been seeing some pretty stupid anti-mask rants from a once intelligent guy lately so we still need it.

I’m curious about Police Scotland now, because of their high-handed persecution of Marion Millar.

In case you haven’t seen the post earlier today:

So I looked at their Twitter and I didn’t have to look far.

They say “A hate crime is any crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by malice & ill-will towards a social group” but I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think they act on reports of hate crimes against women. The new hate crimes law (which is separate from this incident, which cites the Malicious Communications Act) doesn’t include women as targets of hate crime. I guess women are the new men? We’re the ones with so much social power and physical strength and general dominance that we can’t be the targets of hate crimes?

It’s never International Day Against Misogyny. Why is that exactly?

Joanna Moorhead at The Guardian interviews Kathleen Stock:

Stock, a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, says the key question she addresses – itself offensive to many – is this: do trans women count as women?

Whatever else about her views is controversial, she is surely on firm ground when she writes that this question has become surrounded by toxicity. But the problem for her is, at least partly, that many people do anything they can to avoid answering it. “Very few people who are sceptical talk about it directly, because they’re frightened,” she says. “It’s so hard psychologically to say, in reply: ‘I’m afraid not.’”

Maybe it’s easier if you just say no, of course not.

Stock is at pains to say she is not a transphobe, and also that she is sympathetic to the idea that many people feel they are not in the “right” body. What she says she opposes, though, is the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex. And she believes that increasingly in universities and the wider world, that is a view that cannot be challenged.

She doesn’t so much “believe” that as know it all too well, including from personal experience.

How, then, in her view, have we got to where we are? Stock takes issue with Stonewall, the LGBTQ+ charity, which campaigns for trans inclusion and opposes the views of gender-critical feminists. The charity’s Diversity Champions programme is very popular on campuses, and Stock believes this has in part “turned universities into trans activist organisations” through their equality, diversity and inclusion departments.

Stonewall, as we read earlier today, started out as a campaigning group for LG; the TQ got grafted on later. Now the LG come in a distant second.

Jesus, Scotland, get a grip.

On Monday 17th May we received a report of controversial stickers having been placed on lampposts within the Viewforth Avenue area of Kirkcaldy.

Should you come across stickers of this nature, please contact ourselves or @FifeCouncil so that their removal can be arranged.— Kirkcaldy Police (@KirkcaldyPolice) May 21, 2021

Of what nature? The people of Kirkcaldy are supposed to let them know if they (the people) see any stickers “of this nature” but they (the police) forgot to say what “this nature” IS. The word “controversial” doesn’t narrow it down enough to be useful.

Maybe all the phones are ringing off the hooks with people reporting every single sticker on every single lamppost in not just the Viewforth Avenue area but in all of Kirkcaldy. Just to be sure, you know.

Updating to add: They’ve deleted the tweet now (feeling stupid?) so we’ll be needing a screenshot.

“Stickers of this nature” – that too is very Hyacinth Bucket. The rest of us just say “stickers like this.” An advantage of this lazy way of wording is that it leaves us time to notice that we never said what “this nature” was.

One of those times when your eyes bug out because you just cannot believe what you’re reading.

wheesht.

FOR TWEETS. For tweets that some damn fool of a cop considers “homophobic” or “transphobic” (and why do I suspect that “homophobic” is tossed in there to shield the “transphobic” bit when it’s really the “transphobic” they’re in a lather about?). Are all the cops in Scotland hunched over their phones reading all the tweets in the universe to find people to interrogate and charge?

It’s their damn fool “hate crimes” law.

MSPs have passed Scotland’s controversial new hate crime law.

The legislation consolidates existing law and extends protection for vulnerable groups with a new offence of “stirring up hatred”.

And what does “stirring up hatred” include? Why, skepticism about magic gender, of course, if you have the bad taste to air such skepticism on Twitter.

Under the bill, offences are considered “aggravated” – which could influence sentencing – if they involve prejudice on the basis of age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics (sometimes described as “intersex” physical or biological characteristics).

But not sex itself, so threatening women with rape and dismemberment is fine, but say a man can’t be a woman and bam, you’re in a cell.

Matthew Parris on Stonewall:

You hear talk of “identities” but your gay identity overlaps with so many others you feel that it needn’t define you. Nevertheless, as “a member of the gay community” (a fiction that can make you grind your teeth) you may feel there’s still a need for an organisation to speak up for gay men and lesbian women’s rights and needs: to do “outreach” work in British schools and workplaces, and maybe abroad where your fellowgays still face the gallows. You might join and pay your subs to such an organisation.

I did — until last year. I was one of that organisation’s fourteen founders. Stonewall, formed on May 24, 1989, was set up during the furore over Section 28 of the local government act, engineered by a Tory government to ban the “promotion” of homosexuality…

I remember, too, the sense of solidarity between stalwarts such as Ian McKellen (kindly, conciliatory and shrewd) and Lisa Power (punchy, motherly and fun). I remember Michael Cashman (he of the first gay kiss in EastEnders): thoughtful, civil, and empathetic. We didn’t always agree on aims (I was for reducing the age of male homosexual consent from 21 to 18; the majority were for full equality at 16, so 16 it was) but the big thing we wanted — for gay men and lesbian women to come out of the shadows and into the sun — was so clear and strong that our differences melted in its glare. We rented a little office, engaged a CEO, and Stonewall was launched.

Monday marks the 32nd anniversary of that Wednesday in 1989. But Stonewall has lost its way. The sun we all thought we saw has gone behind clouds of anger, intolerance and partisanship. The organisation is tangled up in the trans issue, cornered into an extremist stance on a debate that a charity formed to help gay men, lesbian women and bisexual people should never have got itself into.

Oh but it’s the LGBTQ+ community, you see, so you’re not allowed to say no. (This is why the LGB Alliance is so necessary.)

What is the charity I helped to found doing, getting entangled in attempts to deny free speech at a university? This column should avoid getting into the trans debate itself. My single, tight focus is on this question: why Stonewall?

There’s something perversely 20th-century about linking gays to trans. Gay men do not want to be women. We like being men. I doubt that being a lesbian is about not wanting to be a woman. Our issues have nothing to do with identification or changing our bodies: we know what we are and nobody disputes it. Most gay men would strongly resist the suggestion we’re boys who want to be girls. I can’t think of anything I’d like less. The whole history of the gay liberation movement is inseparable from what people do rather than what they are. Central to trans concerns is being, not doing.

Also central is not being. It’s about magic. It’s about pretending that pretending changes reality. It’s about insisting, and even mandating, that pretending to be something actually makes you that something. It’s about insisting that you are what you are not, and that everyone else has to agree.

Perhaps the truth is that, after success in our great 20th-century drive for equality, Stonewall was left with bricks and mortar, an admirable staff, a CEO and a fund-raising team and, unconsciously, craved another big, newsworthy cause. 

That. I think that’s a big part of it, and not just for Stonewall. I think people got bored with the old familiar causes, and younger ones wanted their own new cause, and trans is it.

The Times on how Essex University got it so wrong:

Forster’s apologies came as Essex University published the damning report of an 18-month independent inquiry by barrister Akua Reindorf. It found that Essex had failed to uphold free speech, labelled Phoenix and Freedman transphobes, and subjected them to mass complaints in what Phoenix has described as a “mob atmosphere”. The two professors believe that men cannot become women by surgery and that it is important to protect women-only spaces in institutions such as prisons and refuges, views which are anathema to some trans activists.

That puts it the wrong way around though. It’s not that they “believe” that men cannot become women by surgery so much as it is that they don’t believe that men can become women via surgery (or anything else). People don’t have affirmative beliefs about all the impossible things, because there are too many and we don’t have time. We take the simpler path of just not believing impossible things. A bunch of very confused people have started insisting that men can become women via surgery or by merely saying so, but the rest of us just don’t share their peculiar and incoherent belief. It’s theirs, it’s not ours, that’s all. There’s no need for us to expend extra energy believing that men can’t turn into women, we just don’t believe they can.

The pair were this week sent unredacted copies of Reindorf’s report and were shocked at the detail in it. Phoenix discovered that a flyer was circulated with “violent and profane” imagery, including the image of a gun, and the words Shut the F*** Up TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), a pejorative term for someone considered transphobic.

And apparently the people in charge at Essex just thought that was ok, deserved, appropriate?

Freedman, who is Jewish and an adviser to the UN, was “disinvited” from speaking on a panel on antisemitism at Essex to mark Holocaust Memorial Week because of her views on transgender issues. A member of the university staff later tweeted comparing her to a Holocaust denier. “Essex [University] did nothing about the academic who compared me to a Holocaust denier,” she said. “When I read the unredacted report it confirmed to me what I already knew — which is that there were complaints about me being interviewed for a job at Essex. The undercurrent of vindictiveness and nastiness made me feel I was going a bit mad. It has had an impact on family life and mental wellbeing.”

All this because we can’t believe something we consider impossible.

Wait a second.

Its reputation is that of an idyll for cyclists, a city freed from the torment of cars. But while Amsterdam remains a model to most of the world, there are signs of trouble in paradise.

A series of developments have led the Amsterdam branch of the Fietsersbond, the Dutch cyclists’ union, to claim the municipality has turned on them, unfairly prioritising pedestrians in the city’s historic centre.

……………………..Unfairly prioritising pedestrians? But pedestrians are more vulnerable to cyclists than cyclists are to pedestrians.

Where once the cyclist was king, free to weave around the small roads of the centrum with abandon, it is claimed there has been a discernible change of attitude. At best cyclists are being treated as “guests” in the heart of the city, at worst as intruders to be expelled to outer lanes, it is suggested.

Meaning cyclists used to be allowed to zip around without paying attention to pedestrians? If so that’s not a particularly good situation.

“Amsterdam is still a cyclists’ paradise but it is getting more and more difficult to move through the centre,” said Jan Pieter Nepveu, a spokesperson for the Amsterdam branch of the cyclists’ union. “It starts with the proclamation of a pedestrian zone and before you know it, cycling is discouraged with kerbs and then fences. The centre becomes the domain of pedestrians. The municipality will have to defend cyclists against an increase in walkers, tourists and the catering industry.”

Or maybe cyclists will just have to go around the centre. Making cities the domain of pedestrians is a good thing.

Over 2019 and 2020, a trial was launched by the municipality to see if it could encourage cyclists to take “alternative routes” rather than travel directly on the Damstraatjes and Haarlemmerstraat, two central areas.

The “stress” caused by overcrowding and fast-moving bikes was said to have moved local residents and entrepreneurs to demand action. “The cyclist’s behaviour is the most important point in this issue,” a report on the experiment noted.

That’s just it, you see – fast-moving bikes are dangerous to pedestrians. People shouldn’t be biking fast through crowded areas full of pedestrians. (They also shouldn’t be riding motorized scooters on the sidewalks in Seattle. Ahem.)

[C]hoices are also being made that are clearly designed to constrain the free-wheeling spirit of the past, it is claimed. The most recent flash point has been the redevelopment of the Binnengasthuis site in Amsterdam’s university quarter, a complex of buildings that used to be a hospital.

What was once an important cycle lane running through the site is to be submerged into “a pedestrian area where bicycles are guests”, as a recent council agenda described it. The move drew about 50 protesters a week ago, including Saar Muller, 68, a a retired clinical physicist.

“The university intends to give pedestrians priority and divert the cycling through traffic through an unsafe road – narrow, many cars, loading and unloading,” she said. “This development seems to us to be part of a broader tendency to create ‘pedestrians first’ space…

But, again, why not? Why should cyclists be first instead? Pedestrians are the least intrusive and the safest so why shouldn’t they be put first?

A petition to Parliament:

Make non-binary a legally recognised gender identity in the UK

Have non binary be included as an option under the GRP (Gender Recognition Panel)/ GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate), in order to allow those identifying as non binary to be legally seen as their true gender identity. As well as having ‘Non-binary’ be seen as a valid transgender identity.

What does it mean to be “legally seen as”? What does the government have to do with how people are “seen” or what people are “seen as”? What is the point of petitioning the government to make it possible for you to be “seen as” some meaningless category?

Why not just simplify this whole thing and petition the government to make it that everybody pays ALL ATTENTION to me me me me me me me all the time from here on out? The me me me me me of course is generic and universal: everybody would be paying all attention to all the me me me me mes under this arrangement. That way all the ravenous egos would be satisfied at last and we could go back to normal life. Except for the part about having to pay all our attention to everyone all the time.

There is no option of ‘Non-binary’ on legal forms, ignoring members of the population. This requires the government to pass a law that publicly recognises ‘Non-binary’ as a part of the GRP under the Gender Recognition Act, a.k.a a legal and valid gender identity option. By recognising Non-binary as a valid gender identity, it would aid in the protection of Non-binary individuals against transphobic hate crimes, and would ease Gender Dysphoria experienced by Non-binary people.

Are “non-binary” people especially subject to hate crimes? Does anyone even notice, or care? And how do “non-binary” people manage to experience Gender Dysphoria (which apparently gets capital letters now, to look more official)?

Can self-obsession get any more baroque and absurd?

The commandment of the age – don’t mention women. Just don’t, ok?

Smear test invitations should not refer to women as it is discouraging trans men from accessing cancer screenings, a new study has suggested.

Researchers said that gender neutral invitations should be used instead to encourage uptake from trans men to get screened.

While at the same time discouraging uptake from women.

Current NHS guidance means that anyone with a cervix between 25 and 64 is eligible for cervical screening, including trans men and non-binary people.

In other words women are eligible for cervical screening, of course including the ones who call themselves trans men or non-binary.

The new study, published in the British Journal of General Practice, polled trans men and non-binary people on their experiences.

Individuals told researchers that “most of the negative points of the experience came from the very women focused design and language” in leaflets.

Another person said that “documents I have seen… are very feminine and woman/she/her-centred, which would make me uncomfortable if I received them”. 

Oh grow up ffs. It’s just a bit of paper or an email. You’re not marrying it, you’re not living with it, it’s just some words about a preventive medical screening. Medical screenings are not yet another opportunity for identity-massaging. Get over yourself.

It depends what “are” means. NBC News reports:

The number of young people who are gender-diverse — including transgender, nonbinary and genderqueer — may be significantly higher than previously thought, according to a new study.

That makes it sound as if “gender-diverse” refers to something real, solid, empirical, testable, when in fact “gender-diverse” is just a trendy way of labeling people who don’t follow every single convention about how female people and male people are supposed to behave differently from each other. Young John wears makeup? Young Susan has a buzzcut? Add them to the list!

Researchers in Pittsburgh found that nearly 1 in 10 students in over a dozen public high schools identified as gender-diverse — five times the current national estimates. Gender diversity refers to people whose gender identities or gender expressions differ from the sexes they were assigned at birth, according to the American Psychological Association.

Whoopdeedoo, I’m surprised it’s not 9 in 10. Note the “identified as” – this isn’t an item like carrying the sickle cell gene or having red hair, it’s an item about social roles and cultural norms and fads. 1 out 10 Pittsburgh high school students are nonconformist around gender – it doesn’t sound all that astonishing that way, does it.

In a report published this week in the journal Pediatrics, researchers from the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Seattle Children’s Hospital, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the UCLA School of Medicine analyzed 3,168 student surveys culled from 13 Pittsburgh high schools. 

Why? What’s it got to do with public health or pediatrics or medicine? Not liking the conventions of gender isn’t a medical issue.

In all, 291 participants, or 9.2 percent, reported incongruities between their sexes assigned at birth and their experienced gender identities. Of those gender-diverse youths, about 30 percent expressed transmasculine identities and about 39 percent expressed transfeminine identities. People with nonbinary identities were about 31 percent of the total.

Cue more heavy breathing.

They tweaked the survey, see.

The 2017 edition, given to 118,803 students ages 14 to 18 from 10 states and nine large urban school districts, was the first and only one to date to include a question about gender identity, but it simply asked, “Do you identify as transgender?” and gave respondents the option to reply “yes,” “no” or “I’m not sure.”

Well that won’t do! It’s not nearly leading enough. You have to lead the witness if you want to get the desired answer.

Kidd and her colleagues added a two-part gender identity question in their survey: (1) “What is your sex (the sex you were assigned at birth, on your birth certificate)?” with options for “female” and “male,” and (2) “Which of the following best describes you (select all that apply)?” with the options “girl,” “boy,” “trans girl,” “trans boy,” “genderqueer,” “nonbinary” and “another identity.” 

There you go. Give the kids a bunch of ways to sound more interesting. The numbers will rocket up.

Although the data come from a single school district, the authors write, “the findings may approximate a less biased estimate of the prevalence of youth with gender-diverse identities.” 

Why is it of interest to medical people how gender-conforming high school students are?

The study was published as lawmakers across the U.S. are introducing a raft of measures to ban or limit gender-affirming care [off-label hormones and puberty blockers] for minors and restrict transgender students’ participation in school sports [restrict males from invading women’s sports].

…

Numerous leading medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend access to comprehensive, gender-affirming and developmentally appropriate care for trans and gender-diverse young people. 

But what if it’s not “care”? What if that’s the wrong word? What if it’s harm? Damage? Mutilation?

Michael Cohen says Trump will flip on his own children.

Former Trump Organization Vice President Michael Cohen, upon learning of the now-criminal probe, said of the Trump children, “I think Trump is going to flip on them.” While we have no idea what the future will hold, we do know that what this all means is that — if they haven’t already — it’s time for members of the Trump family who served as organization employees to each retain experienced criminal defense lawyers.

Each. Each get her or his own. That means you too, Jared. They have to get their own because they’re all going to try to rat each other out. It will be a most edifying spectacle.

In fact, depending on what those Trump Organization family members have already said — and to whom — it may already be too late. Importantly, because the Trump Organization case is now criminal, individual employees and officers of that organization can face criminal charges for their specific roles in any corporate wrongdoing. Donald Jr. and Eric still serve as executive vice presidents of the organization, a title that Ivanka Trump previously also held. And, of course, before his presidency, their infamous father was at the helm of the organization.

This is Frank Figliuzzi talking, former FBI guy, now MSNBC legal commentator.

During my FBI career, including my time leading one of the largest white-collar crime branches in the field, and later, as a corporate security executive, I saw corporate employees mistakenly think that their companies’ attorneys represented them, too, in cases of corporate malfeasance. Big mistake. A company attorney represents the company, not the individual employees or executives.

And you don’t want to be trusting the people who run that company, even (or especially) when they’re your siblings or your daddy.

If any of the Trump family members have already even casually answered questions posed by their organization’s counsel or hired investigators, they may have mistakenly thought that what they were providing was privileged. And those statements would be privileged — but not if the organization decided, in its own interest or at the direction of the former president, that maybe Eric or Don Jr. or Ivanka needed to take the fall to save the organization or keep its notorious CEO out of prison.

They know he’d do it in a heartbeat.

For the Trump family, it may already be too late to get their stories straight. And doing so may not even be in their individual best interests. That’s why it’s time for each of them to separately lawyer up, avoid public statements — and be really nice to one another.

Ah but they don’t know how to be nice.