Heather Cox Richardson yesterday

Immediately after the catastrophe became apparent, Texas officials began to blame cuts to the National Weather Service (NWS)—part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—for causing inaccurate forecasts. The “Department of Government Efficiency” cut about 600 staffers from the NWS. After the cuts, the understaffed agency warned that “severe shortages” of meteorologists would hurt weather forecasting.

All five living former directors of the NWS warned in May that the cuts “[leave] the nation’s official weather forecasting entity at a significant deficit…just as we head into the busiest time for severe storm predictions like tornadoes and hurricanes…. Our worst nightmare is that weather forecast offices will be so understaffed that there will be needless loss of life.”

But former NWS officials maintain the forecasts were as accurate as possible and noted the storm escalated abruptly. They told Christopher Flavelle of the New York Times that the problem appeared to be that NWS had lost the staffers who would typically communicate with local authorities to spread the word of dangerous conditions. Molly Taft at Wired confirmed that NWS published flash flood warnings but safety officials didn’t send out public warnings until hours later.

A distinction without a meaningful difference. It’s no good having flawless forecasts if you keep them a secret. It’s like that moment in Dr Strangelove – Vy didn’t you tell ze vorrld?!

Yeah no.

Vile colleagues part 3: Dear Professor Byrne

It was alleged in May that you were among the anonymous authors of the HHS report on pediatric trans care. The report, among other things, issues the alarming recommendation that trans youth should not have access to gender-affirming care, despite the leading pediatric medical body in the country supporting the efficacy and life-saving potential of these treatments. [1]

In light of your recent confirmation [2] of these allegations, we as your colleagues at MIT, in philosophy, and in higher-education feel it necessary to speak out.

They’re not actually his colleagues. Most of them are grad students. Some are colleagues, but not most.

[S]ince 1966, the AAUP has also agreed on a Statement on Professional Ethics. [5] Per this 1966 Statement, professors are obligated to “exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge” and to “practice intellectual honesty”. We take this to mean that as academics, we also have a responsibility to the public to not misconstrue the scope of our expertise, nor comment in our capacity as academics on issues where we lack the requisite expertise. It is, of course, compatible with professional academic ethics to express one’s views publicly, even when one is not an expert, i.e., one might lobby for a particular candidate or write an op-ed in a newspaper.  But contributing to a document as an expert in an area in which one is not an expert is contrary to professional standards.

What is expertise when it comes to trans ideology?

To the extent that it’s a psychiatric issue I can believe there are some experts (along with a lot of pseudo experts), but to the extent that it’s a political or ideological issue, philosophers are well qualified to wade in. These days it’s a lot more political/ideological than medical. Remember, anyone who says xir is trans is trans, end of discussion, don’t you dare ask questions. That means there can’t possibly be a “you are a mere amateur” barrier to discussion of the politics and ideology.

Given your lack of the requisite expertise, we believe it is inappropriate for you to engage in the shaping of national medical policy on gender-affirming care for trans youth. Familiarity with theories of gender made from the armchair does not equip one to make expert judgments about the quality of medical studies, nor about the lived experiences and needs of trans youth and their families.

And do they say the same thing to trans youth and their families? And to all the cheerleaders of trans youth and their families? No, of course they don’t. It’s only dissenters who have no right to utter a peep on the subject.

In contributing to a medical report that will have significant negative impacts on the lives of trans youth across this country, we believe that you have failed to uphold your responsibility as an academic to provide expert testimony only on matters included in your domain of expertise. 

He’s a philosopher. Their expertise is in probing ideas and truth-claims to make sure they’re not blobs of cotton candy.

Collaboration with the Current Presidential Administration. The past few months have witnessed the Trump administration engage in the kidnapping of international graduate students from the streets, the deportation of innocent people to dangerous foreign prisons without due process, the cutting of lifesaving aid to millions across the world, and the undermining of the independence of colleges and universities across the country. We find these actions appalling, unethical, and undemocratic.

Of course none of that has anything whatever to do with you but by god we’re going to pretend it does.

For these reasons, we believe it is deeply myopic for any academic to collaborate with the Trump administration in this moment, regardless of one’s particular views about gender. However misguided one may think “gender ideology” is, it is simply unconscionable to for that reason, make common cause with an administration so engaged.

The Trump administration knows that fire burns, therefore it is simply unconscionable for anyone to agree that fire burns.

So there you go. It’s an embarrassingly stupid document, signed mostly by grad students. Give it a Bronx cheer and be done with it.

Vile colleagues part 2.

“While you claim to support the right of trans people to live freely, in practice your behavior does not support this right. Since 2020 you have published a number of academic articles, as well as one book, arguing against trans inclusivity.”

Excuse me excuse me – what does the second sentence have to do with the first? The right to live freely is not a synonym for inclusivity, and vice versa.

Philosophers of all people are required to be very precise about this kind of thing. That’s their job. Living freely is one thing, and “inclusivity” aka being included is another. They don’t even overlap. In some ways they’re in tension with each other. Being included tends to require giving up some freedom. If you freely shout insults all the time you’re not likely to be included much. So are these colleagues of Byrne’s even thinking here? Or are they just summoning the usual string of clichés and platitudes?

Yeah it’s that last one.

Furthermore I’m betting he didn’t “argue against trans inclusivity” at all…unless by “inclusivity” they mean not included in the human family, not-ostracized, that kind of thing, but rather included in definitions.

Is that what they mean? Is that what they all mean? That definitions are the same kind of thing as friendship groups? That it’s mean and cruel and cold to excloood people from their chosen self-definitions, no matter how wack those definitions are?

And this is in the philosophy department?

Give me strength.

Yet another witch trial under way.

…feel it necessary to speak out.

While we are not here calling for official or unofficial sanctions, we the undersigned believe that your behavior (a) perpetuates harm toward the trans community; (b) constitutes a failure to uphold your responsibilities as an academic; (c) is the result of an extremely misguided decision to collaborate with the Trump administration.

Is it still 2015? Are people still pouring out these strings of meaningless bromides and malicious accusations as if they had merit? And not just people but academics?

Note “perpetuates” – as if it were widely accepted that knowing men are not women=harm toward the tranz communniny. Note the assumption that knowing and saying men are not women=harm. Here’s a shocker: the real harm is in encouraging people to think their fantasies about themselves are not fantasies at all but reality.

Given that (a) is complete manipulative bullshit, (b) is more of the same. His responsibility as an academic does not include encouraging people to believe impossible fantasies about themselves. His vile colleagues are the ones not upholding their responsibilities as academics.

As for (c), on what basis do they “believe” the snide bit about collaborating with Trump? On the basis of malice and brain-dead conformity to the current misguided and delusional trans ideology. They’re a nasty bunch. As Steve McGuire says, they should be ashamed.

To be continued.

Stone the crows, Euan [aka Sophie Molly] has written an article. It’s as bad as you’d expect.

Back in April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the definition of ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ refers to biological sex. This legal clarification, though presented as a matter of statutory interpretation, has had far-reaching and deeply personal consequences for many trans individuals across the country. 

Back in April, he means, or in April this year. “Back in April 2025” is clumsy and ridiculous. He is not a clever man.

More substantively, notice his whine about personal consequences for “trans individuals” [what’s wrong with “people”? Doesn’t sound pompous enough?] while he ignores personal consequences for female individuals, who outnumber trans ones by a very very very large margin. In short it’s the usual mistake: “This is bad for trans people and we don’t give a shit about female people.” Back atcha bro.

Since the judgement, a growing number of trans people have reported facing discrimination when trying to access single-sex spaces, particularly toilets and changing rooms.

It’s not “discrimination.” Men are not allowed to use women’s toilets and changing rooms because that would make women unsafe. We don’t let murderers babysit children and we don’t let men barge into women’s toilets.

It’s all too easy to discuss laws in the abstract, but it’s much harder to hear the stories of those now forced to navigate life with increased anxiety, fear and isolation.

You mean women, right? Oh no of course you don’t, you mean men. Again.

I’ll skip over paragraph after paragraph of whining to leave you with this gem:

What might at first glance appear to be a tidy legal ruling has created a mess on the ground.

Oops! Bad shellfish maybe?

Allison Bailey won her case.

A gender-critical lawyer was banned by her vet because of her belief that there are only two biological sexes, a judge has said.

Imagine a vet or dentist or doctor takes exception to you because of your “belief” that humans are not rabbits.

Allison Bailey, a retired criminal defence barrister and co-founder of the LGB Alliance, sued Palmerston Veterinary Group’s surgery in Walthamstow, north-east London, after she was “expelled” from the practice.

The practice claimed she was thrown out for being rude to staff, but the judge rejected the argument, saying she had faced “unlawful discrimination” because of her beliefs.

I hope that vet practice isn’t spaying male dogs and cats and rabbits.

During the case, Ms Bailey’s barrister Akua Reindorf KC told the court the practice’s “culture” included promotion of “trans activist material”, saying Dr Munro had shared information to staff members about how to address trans clients by their preferred pronouns and other preferred language use.

Does this come up a lot? We’re told trans people are a tiny minority; is there really a need to “share information” about how to address trans clients? Anyway what information would that be? There is no “trans” version of “you.”

In the witness box, Dr Munro replied: “I don’t believe that I hold strong views. Am I some sort of radical pro-trans activist? No. I believe I hold views that many people in society have and the feeling behind this was one of kindness, inclusivity and treating people as you wish to be treated.”

Nah it’s not about “kindness.” It’s about conspicuous obedience. If it were about kindness there would be some acknowledgement that women too have rights.

Aren’t we clever, we’ve resurrected measles.

Falling childhood vaccine coverage and a large, smoldering outbreak that was kindled in an undervaccinated pocket of West Texas have driven the United States to a troubling new milestone: There have been more measles cases in the US this year than any other since the disease was declared eliminated a quarter-century ago.

Nice work, Bob. You’re a real piece of shit.

Experts say this year’s cases are likely to be severely undercounted because many are going unreported. Three people have died from measles this year – two children in Texas and one adult in New Mexico, all of whom were unvaccinated – matching the total number of US measles deaths from the previous two and a half decades.

Measles was declared eliminated in the US in 2000, meaning there has not been continuous transmission for more than a year at a time. Reaching this status was “a historic public health achievement,” according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, possible in large part because of vaccine development. The measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine that is most commonly used first became widely available in the US in the 1970s.

With the result (among other results) that more and more people know less and less about measles. Bad Kennedy exploits that lack of awareness for his crank purposes.

Another bold advertisement of how radically different and horrible the Trump regime is:

Trump says he wants to stage UFC fight on White House grounds

Next year it will be fight to the death gladiators.

US president Donald Trump said Thursday that he’s thinking of staging a UFC match on the White House grounds with upwards 20,000 spectators to celebrate 250 years of American independence.

“We have a lot of land there,” said Trump, a UFC enthusiast who has attended several of its mixed martial arts matches in recent months and is close friends with Dana White, the league’s president.

Oh good. That’s an excellent reason to celebrate independence with a display of violence.

Military displays serve the same purpose, of course, but at least they are displays as opposed to the violence itself. We don’t generally drop bombs or sink ships by way of celebrating independence.

Trump has recently enjoyed standing ovations and cage-side seats for several UFC fights, including an appearance immediately after his 2024 reelection and another just last month alongside White for two championship fights.

Of course he has, the great big puffy flabby marshmallow with his painted face and gilded combover.

He’s been working up to it.

For the UFC, its association with Trump has granted the once-renegade promotion a new kind of political legitimacy and influence. It also set it apart from other sports leagues through its unapologetically conservative posture. The UFC is even sponsoring the United States Semiquincentennial dubbed America 250, joining the likes of Amazon, the Coca-Cola Company, Oracle and Walmart.

Since taking office in January, Trump has attended two separate UFC events. He most recently attended UFC 316 in June just hours after signing a memo ordering the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles County after Ice immigration raids sparked mass protests. He nevertheless enjoyed a standing ovation from the fans in attendance, and glowing endorsements from the fighters, one of whom even kneeled before Trump. UFC champion Kayla Harrison embraced him, planted a kiss on his cheek, and wrapped her championship belt around his waist as his family and supporters looked on in delight. It was a spectacle befitting the strongman Trump imagines himself to be.

Which is why Trump’s plan to stage a UFC event at the White House makes perfect sense. It is the natural climax of a partnership in which the UFC has become the stage for Maga mythology. It carries shades of fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini, particularly its obsession with masculinity, spectacle, and nationalism – but with a modern, American twist.

Yeah, this ain’t your great-grandaddy’s fascism, this is the new hip glamorous fun fascism where we deport immigrants to places like the Gobi desert and the smallest Galapagos island and then have a good laugh.

Fascist Italy used rallies, parades and sports events to project strength and unity. Sports, especially combat sports, were used as tools to cultivate Mussolini’s ideal masculinity and portray Italy as a strong and powerful nation. Similarly, Trump has relied on the UFC to project his tough-guy image, and to celebrate his brand of nationalistic masculinity.

Which includes conspicuous brown paint on the face and weird gilded hair and an enormous gut.

Loyalty to Trump, rather than the Constitution and the American people, has become the primary litmus test for political advancement. Meanwhile, sports have emerged as a central feature of his administration, advancing his policies while projecting a cult of personality and the celebration of violence. All of these are the hallmarks of authoritarianism.

There was once a time when the US could point to the authoritarian pageantry of regimes like Mussolini’s Italy and claim at least some moral distance. That line is no longer visible. What was once soft power borrowed from strongmen is now being proudly performed on America’s own front lawn.

Bam biff bop.

Hahahaha you don’t say.

Join us! No wait, don’t, we’re not doing it after all. Pretend we never said anything. Pretend you never heard of us.

The full announcement, which hilariously has not been quietly deleted.

This Pride Month we’re celebrating the diversity of sexual behaviour, biology and reproduction found in nature.

Speak with our scientists about all manner of subjects, from asexual reproduction in Komodo dragons to the marvellous mating methods of molluscs. Watch award-winning drag king Bi-Curious George perform and pick your favourite specimen to use as a muse in one of our art workshops.

Enjoy exploring our galleries away from the daytime crowds, including our new free Fixing Our Broken Planet Gallery. Plus, visit our new exhibition Space: Could Life Exist Beyond Earth? for a truly out-of-this-world experience.

Join us for this after-hours event with science-centred activities you won’t find anywhere else.

This event has been cancelled. If you have any questions, contact us at contact us at after-hours@nhm.ac.uk.

Was it the “away from the daytime crowds” bit? Did that sound a little too much like come along with Uncle George while the grownups are not looking? Was it the after-hours part? The watch award-winning drag king aspect? Please advise.

Thick as two short planks.

She probably didn’t write it herself but she did choose to share it despite the obvious stupidities.

Of course we allow “color critical views.” I dislike beige. I’m allowed to say that. Of course we allow “disability critical views.” Disabilities are bad and nobody wants them. I’m allowed to say that. As for “religion critical views” – ever heard of atheism? There are cultures that frown on it and even some that punish it, but the more prosperous and free cultures allow it. I can confirm: I co-wrote a book about God’s apparent hatred of women and I was never visited by the police for doing so.

And so on. Of course people are allowed to say marriage is confining, to say pregnancy is tiring and burdensome, to say sex is a nuisance or boring or filthy or whatever they feel like. Of course we are. We’re also allowed to say Helen Webberley is really bad at thinking.

He could ask Jared…

The Anti-Defamation League on Friday condemned President Donald Trump’s use of the term “Shylock” at a Thursday night rally, saying the president was invoking a “centuries-old antisemitic trope.”

During a campaign-style rally speech in Iowa on Thursday — in which the president basked in his megabill success — Trump touted what he and Republicans have promoted as benefits of the sweeping legislation.

“No death tax. No estate tax. No going to the banks and borrowing from, in some cases, a fine banker — and in some cases, shylocks and bad people,” Trump said.

You can see him flailing there even before you get to the “shylock.” He was going to paint banks in general as full of crooks but realized that would piss off quite a large chunk of his fan base, so he attempted a self-correct in the middle of the sentence.

The use of the word “Shylock,” which is viewed as an antisemitic term, prompted immediate outcry from prominent Jewish organizations, including the ADL, which decried Trump’s use of the term in a statement posted to X Friday morning.

“The term ‘Shylock’ evokes a centuries-old antisemitic trope about Jews and greed that is extremely offensive and dangerous. President Trump’s use of the term is very troubling and irresponsible,” the statement read. “Words from our leaders matter and we expect more from the President of the United States.”

Really? From this one? That would be silly.

Trump has claimed that he did not know the weight the term carried.

“I’ve never heard it that way,” the president told reporters aboard Air Force One early Friday morning. “To me, Shylock is somebody that’s a moneylender at high rates. I’ve never heard it that way. You view it differently than me.”

Yes, and? He’s pig-ignorant and thinks he isn’t. We know.

Ffs how stupid do you have to be to set off fireworks IN LOS ANGELES?

A woman has been left in critical condition after suffering injuries in a residential fire involving active fireworks that more than 100 firefighters responded to, officials said.

The incident occurred just after 9 p.m. in the Pacoima neighborhood of Los Angeles, California, when authorities say that three one-story homes were showing fire when the Los Angeles Fire Department responded to “active fireworks inside a detached garage are exposing more homes and brush in the area,” according to information obtained from the LAFD by ABC News’ Los Angeles station KABC.

Bad writing, but we get the idea – some idiot set off fireworks inside a garage…IN LOS ANGELES.

Erm…sir…

When Pride becomes megalomania:

When Marion Harding contacted the chief executive of Surrey County Council in 2021 to raise safeguarding concerns about her local Pride organisation, she expected a speedy response.

After all, the council itself had given Pride in Surrey tens of thousands of pounds in funding, and her concerns were about the protection of potentially vulnerable young people who came into contact with the LGBTQ organisation, which was set up in 2018 by local activist, Stephen Ireland.

Harding, 62, and her wife, Cathy, 59, had volunteered for Pride in Surrey, but both had a number of worries about Ireland’s conduct, not least that he had appointed himself head of safeguarding – a role that, according to guidance for voluntary bodies, should “not be the most senior person in the organisation”.

Why not? Oh I bet we can guess – because if the most senior person is, say, a pedophile, then the most senior person is not going to do a brilliant job of safeguarding and will not let anyone else do a brilliant job either.

The council appears to have done little or nothing in response to Harding’s concerns.

In March this year, Stephen Ireland, 41, was convicted at Guildford Crown Court of raping a 12-year-old boy, along with additional counts of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, sexual assault and making indecent images.

His partner David Sutton, 27, a volunteer at Pride in Surrey, was convicted of offences including making indecent photographs and possessing extreme pornographic images.

Both were also found guilty of voyeurism and perverting the course of justice by deleting phone data after becoming aware of the investigation. Ireland pleaded guilty to possessing 274 prohibited images of children and possessing an extreme pornographic image, while Sutton pleaded guilty to distributing a category A indecent photograph of a child, distributing three category B indecent photographs of a child, and possessing 64 prohibited images of children. On Monday, Ireland was sentenced to 30 years in prison and Sutton received a minimum 54-month sentence.

…

The Pride in Surrey case has sparked questions about what safeguarding concerns the local councils were aware of before the pair were arrested in April 2024. It wasn’t just local councils that had formal ties to Surrey Pride. Until earlier this year, Surrey Police listed the organisation on its website as a “partner agency” that “can also offer information, advice, and support” on LGBTQ issues, in addition to the force’s LGBTQ liaison officers.

Of course they did. The cops are way too busy sniffing out gender-critical feminists to do anything about pedophiles running Pride groups.

The Telegraph has spoken to several Surrey residents who reported safeguarding concerns as long as six years ago with Surrey council, Guildford Borough Council and Woking Borough Council, which also had ties with Surrey Pride.

But no action appears to have been taken. Surrey County Council has, according to a Freedom of Information request, funded Pride in Surrey to the tune of more than £140,000 for various events and projects since 2020, including £24,275 for the year 2024-2025. Earlier this month, weeks after Ireland’s conviction, Guildford Borough Council announced that “Surrey Pride will be returning to Guildford” for a parade in September – the sixth annual Pride event in Surrey, and the second time it has taken place in Guildford. It included a hyperlink to the website of Pride in Surrey.

The decision astonished those who had been trying to raise the alarm.

Raising the alarm is tranzfobick.

H/t Mostly Cloudy

Oh goody, an open letter.

Open Letter: “Biological Sex” and Its Variants are Transphobic Slurs

Says Trans Advocacy & Complaints Collective, which I suppose is a person and a phone.

To our Public bodies, MPs, and Media outlets,

When considering the language we use to address a group, particularly a minority group, the most precise and respectful term is the language they choose for themselves. This is a widely accepted principle of respect, yet in recent years, it has been inexplicably overlooked when it comes to addressing transgender people and the trans community as a whole.

Is it? Is it? Is it really?

I don’t think so. The words “a group” can mean almost anything. Say you have a group of arsonists, or kidnappers, or Trump fans. Is it a widely accepted principle that we should let them decide what we call them? Nope, I don’t think it is.

Instead, we have witnessed a barrage of offensive terms being invented in recent years whose intention is to cause as much offence and harm to trans people and the trans community, whilst trying to appear authoritative or scientific. To educate those who otherwise might be using these words in good faith, we have decided to make our stance clear:

As much offence and harm as what? When writing an open letter or similar public-facing item it’s a good idea to keep track of your words until you get alllll the way to the end of the sentence.

Now, for the substantive point, no, that’s not what you’ve witnessed. What you’re seeing is reaction to the wild claims of a deluded flattered arrogant communniny hell bent on silencing women and taking all our stuff.

To educate those who otherwise might be using these words in good faith, we have decided to make our stance clear:

“Biological male” and “Biological Female” when referring to trans people, is an offensive slur.

Too bad. You have a biological sex, and when you start trying to take away everything women have fought for, we’re going to point it out.

A fundamental principle of dignity, respect and fostering good relations between those who have a protected characteristic and those who do not, is to refer to communities by non-offensive self-determined language. 

Oh yeah? Then stop calling us cis women.

If our community is hurt by a phrase or term that has been externally assigned to us by those seeking to promote bigotry or erase our human rights, we have the right to call this behaviour out. It is up to no one but the members of our community to decide when something is offensive to us or when we choose to reclaim it. Currently, the trans community overwhelmingly consider the term/phrase “Biological Women” and “Biological Male” to be offensive and a slur. 

Yuh huh and because I identify as a luxury yacht I consider the term/phrase “human being” to be offensive and a slur. What can I do about it? Not a damn thing, and the same goes for you.

As such, we call on Public bodies, MPs and Journalists to stop using and perpetuating this offensive term with immediate effect. 

As such what? What as such?

And as for “with immediate effect” – well I call on you to go knit a bicycle with immediate effect.

The reporting on trans issues is such a hodgepodge of incoherent language and bizarre assumptions. Reuters for instance:

Transgender minors. Transgender soldiers. Transgender characters in books.

The U.S. Supreme Court‘s latest term was bursting with fodder for America’s culture wars, few more so than three cases touching on transgender rights. The court, powered by its 6-3 conservative majority, in each case ruled against transgender plaintiffs or their interests more broadly.

But what if the putative rights are not rights in the first place? It’s not just obvious that men have a right to force themselves on women in women’s spaces provided they claim to be trans women. I, for one, don’t think they do have such a right, because if they do, then women have no right to spaces without men in them. Reuters simply pretends that choke point does not exist.

The court, which issued the final rulings of its nine-month term last Friday, agreed on Thursday to hear another major dispute involving transgender rights during its next term, which begins in October. The justices will decide the legality of Republican-backed state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools, taking up appeals from West Virginia and Idaho defending the measures.

Banning male athletes from female sports teams. Female athletes who are trans don’t want to play on female teams, and can’t if they do want to because taking testosterone is not permitted. It’s male (trans) athletes who want to be on female sports teams, and that is obviously unfair because of the built-in physical differences. It’s pathetic that journalists pretend not to grasp that point.

The Tennessee law upheld by the court bans gender-affirming medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for people under age 18 experiencing gender dysphoria. The court’s conservatives rejected an argument that the measure unlawfully discriminated against these adolescents based on their sex or transgender status.

Gender dysphoria is the clinical diagnosis for significant distress that can result from an incongruence between a person’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth.

That ruling “will undoubtedly encourage opponents of LGBTQ equality to continue enacting laws that deny transgender individuals equal opportunities,” Rutgers Law School Professor Carlos Ball said.

There’s not really such a thing as “LGBTQ” equality. The Q is meaningless, so leave that aside, but the T demands rights that are not rights. It’s not a “right” for a man to say he’s a trans woman and therefore be included in women’s sports. That’s not a right and it has nothing to do with equality.

“For LGBTQ rights supporters,” Ball added, “the ruling is a reminder that most of the hard work on behalf of protecting the rights of transgender people is social and political rather than legal.”

That’s for sure. It’s social and by god it certainly is political. It takes a lot of political to undermine women’s rights while claiming to be on Team Progressive.

Bad deceptive anti-informative journalism yet again.

Trans athlete wins USA Cycling women’s event as female opponents protest and speak out

MALE athlete you dishonest panderers. The problem is that he’s male.

A trans-identifying athlete won a women’s cycling event that was officially sanctioned by USA Cycling on Tuesday, prompting female opponents to protest and speak out. 

A MALE trans-identifying athlete. Decent journalism does not hide the most important aspect of a story.

The trans athlete, Kate Phillips, won first place at the Lyons Masters National Championships in Wisconsin on Tuesday. Phillips beat out veteran women’s cyclist Julie Peterson for the gold, and Peterson then refused to take the podium at the medal ceremony in protest. 

Think he’s huge enough?

Fellow veteran women’s cyclist Kristina Gray, who did not compete against Phillips on Tuesday, wanted to speak out in support of her female peers because she said she’s also had to compete against trans athletes in cycling as an Oregon native. 

MALE athletes. You call the women female athletes, call the male athletes MALE; don’t veil the MALE part by substituting “trans” for male.

Originally a comment by Dave Ricks on The rights of female athletes.

I looked up this source material:

PRESS RELEASE

U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Finds the University of Pennsylvania Has Violated Title IX

APRIL 28, 2025

PRESS RELEASE

U.S. Department of Education Announces the University of Pennsylvania Has Entered into a Resolution Agreement to Resolve its Title IX Violations

JULY 1, 2025

I see 3 things: (1) The words “male” and “female” appear extensively in both press releases, to explain the government case against UPenn in terms of sex discrimination; (2) The phrase “trans” does not appear in either press release; (3) The phrase “gender” appears only once, in the July 1 press release, to cite the Trump Executive Order 14168 (that he signed on his first day back in office, on Jan 20, 2025) about “Gender Ideology Extremism” (in my bolding below):

UPenn has signed OCR’s Resolution Agreement to resolve its Title IX violations, which requires UPenn to undertake the following action items:

• UPenn will restore to female athletes all individual UPenn Division I swimming records, titles, or similar recognitions which were misappropriated by male athletes allowed to compete in female categories;

• UPenn will issue a public statement to the University community stating that it will comply with Title IX, specifying that UPenn will not allow males to compete in female athletic programs or occupy Penn Athletics female intimate facilities;

• The statement will specify that UPenn will adopt biology-based definitions for the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ pursuant to Title IX and consistent with President Trump’s Executive Orders “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism” and “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”;

• UPenn will post the statement in a prominent location on its main website and on each of its websites for women’s athletics;

• UPenn will rescind any guidance which violated Title IX, remove or revise any internal and public-facing statements or documents that are inconsistent with Title IX, and notify all staff and women’s athletics of all such rescissions; and

• UPenn will send a personalized letter of apology to each impacted female swimmer.

My 3 findings above — from the source material — contrast against every news article that I have read about the UPenn case. They all frame the UPenn case in terms of “trans” and “gender” and “transgender” athletes, as if those phrases refer to real things and people. In contrast, the Trump administration sees that “gender ideology” exists — the way I see that Catholicism exists (for example), but I do not use Catholic beliefs in my thinking, or as legal arguments. Trump the man aside, this legal strategy is strong, it is working, and I look forward to seeing more of it.

Just one little thing here.

Penn to ban trans women from women’s sports

By Tuesday afternoon, the Penn website showed other athletes holding the school’s top times in Thomas’ events. The site was annotated with a note that read, “Competing under eligibility rules in effect at the time, Lia Thomas set program records in the 100, 200 and 500 freestyle during the 2021-22 season.”

“While Penn’s policies during the 2021-2022 swim season were in accordance with NCAA eligibility rules at the time, we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules,” Penn President J. Larry Jameson said. “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

Grudging. Minimal. Reluctant. Insufficient.

Of course “some students” were “disadvantaged” – or to put it another way, several female students were grossly cheated. It was wildly, offensively, insultingly unfair, as we loudly said at the time, but the Penn administration and all the other right-thinkers brushed off our objections for the sake of rewarding that great big dude with his giant shoulders and hands. The admission should be a whole lot less grudging than “some were disadvantaged.”

“Our commitment to ensuring a respectful and welcoming environment for all of our students is unwavering,” Jameson said. “At the same time, we must comply with federal requirements, including executive orders, and NCAA eligibility rules, so our teams and student-athletes may engage in competitive intercollegiate sports.”

You completely failed to ensure a respectful and welcoming environment for all of your students when you let William Thomas cheat.