Category: Notes and Comment Blog

News flash: if you admit males who idennify as females to an all-female college then you no longer have an all-female college.

Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened an investigation into Smith College, one of the nation’s largest all-women’s colleges, for admitting biological men and granting them access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams. OCR will determine whether the college violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) by allowing biological males into women’s intimate spaces.  

Title IX contains a single-sex exception that allows colleges to enroll all-male or all-female student bodies—but the exception applies on the basis of biological sex difference, not subjective gender identity. An all-girls college that enrolls male students professing a female identity would cease to qualify as single sex under Title IX. 

The two are not interchangeable. They do not mean the same thing. They are in fact opposed. Males who profess a vague non-tangible spirichooal idenniny are still males and thus do not belong in colleges that call themselves all-female. It’s very simple, yet constantly denied.

When an institution holds itself out as being an all-women’s college, it is not just promising to deliver female-only dorms and bathrooms, and single-sex athletics; it is also committing to maintain a student body that makes possible a particular form of sorority and camaraderie.  

And even solidarity. I don’t expect the Trump administration to call it that, but that’s what it is. It makes as much sense to insert males into that as it would to insert billionaires into a miners’ strike.

Seriously now…the fact that he keeps saying this, that he keeps bragging about it, is the test itself, and he fails it 100 percent.

Trump says he takes a cognitive test whenever people call him a moron. pic.twitter.com/wondGpCu8B

— Acyn (@Acyn) May 4, 2026

'Daily Show' anchor Jon Stewart has a question that is NOT on President Trump's cognitive test. pic.twitter.com/B2vLo0AN3B

— LateNighter (@latenightercom) May 5, 2026

And remember, kids, he can push the button.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on Could completely reframe.

Not to sound too contrarian, but I’d like to put a small asterisk next to the charge of naturalistic fallacy here.

The naturalistic fallacy is the mistake of applying moral justification to a belief or action based on finding examples of it in “nature”.

But “natural” also has a real meaning, as in the philosophical term, natural kinds: these are categories that have a basis in material reality rather than subjective human thought.

The gender-critical argument relies heavily on the argument that the biological sexes are natural kinds — objective, material categories of humans (and all other mammals) with a very clean division between them. Gender activists could just as well throw the charge of naturalistic fallacy at us for making the argument that transgender ideology is bogus because the sexes are natural, “real” categories while “gender identities” are not.

With enough drilling down, one finds that virtually all moral arguments eventually ground themselves in claims about the material world, about the nature of reality. Every ought is ultimately anchored to an is. This can lead to what I like to call the naturalistic fallacy fallacy: argue about anything long enough and it will start to look like it rests on the naturalistic fallacy.

For both gay rights and women’s rights, I believe that nature is in fact our friend, not our foe: the material basis of our differences has come to matter more and more in the battle to protect our freedom and dignity.

Take, for example, the moral argument for banning gay “conversion therapy”. It’s one thing to say, “there’s nothing wrong with being gay, so people shouldn’t be forced to get therapy to un-gay themselves.” But that only gets us up to justifying a ban on forced conversion therapy. The moral argument that homsexuality is harmless justifies gay people’s right to not be forced into therapy to “cure” ourselves of it. Ok. So far, so good, no obvious naturalistic fallacy here. But then: what about gays who want to be straight? There are countless homosexuals who wish they weren’t (Elliot Page probably being one example). Why would we ban them from seeking therapy to at least try to straighten themselves out? Here, the argument suddenly draws upon material reality — nature: science has recently identified homosexuality as an inborn trait that is as-yet not modifiable. The moral argument for banning people from undergoing gay conversion therapy even if they truly want it is that homosexuality is natural, and it’s clinically proven to be harmful to even try to change it with the technology we have today. Now, imagine if doctors get better at brain surgery: it’s not entirely unfathomable that some day soon we will have the technology to modify people’s sexual orientations. Well, guess what? Homosexuals would be even more dependent on the argument that homosexuality is natural to defend ourselves then, wouldn’t we. It’s a tricky bind we could very well end up in.

So we ought not dismiss the appeal to the “natural” so quickly. It’s becoming more imporant all the time, as technology restructures our civilization.

Which brings us back to sex, “transgender”, and the medical technology used to modify the cosmetic appearance of people’s sex, like Elliot Page.

I don’t fault Elliot Page for trying to prove that she’s changed sex by reaching for examples in nature. In fact, I think she’s on the right track to look to nature for answers: by that I mean she should be grounding her facts and her morals in the material world — in reality, which is… nature.

It’s just that she’s done a terrible job doing that. Cherry-picking things that have nothing to do with material reality as it applies to her specifically. In her case, she really has stumbled into the naturalistic fallacy. Rather than looking at nature and finding comfort in the fact that she is exactly what she is — a female ape, with her own unique personality and attributes, and there’s nothing “wrong” with that — she wandered around the zoo looking for “natural” things that might back up her misguided idea that mammalian sexes aren’t natural categories at all.

Ironically, she’s at once fallen for the naturalistic fallacy and something of an anti-naturalistic fallacy: she seems to have looked to nature to prove that her sex isn’t natural.

Leave it to trans to make an illogical pretzel out of everything it touches…

What the hell are those pesky bison doing on our land???

“This is a part of our country’s heritage,” said Alison Fox, executive director of American Prairie, a deep-pocketed nonprofit that has spent two decades buying ranches and grazing leases on public land in northern Montana to create the newly embattled home for bison.

The conflict centers on 900 bison owned by the group, which was allowed by multiple administrations, including President Trump’s first, to graze on federal lands, much to the consternation of politically conservative ranchers who wanted the land for cattle.

How dare those bison stomp all over land that ranchers want for cattle? It goes against God’s plan!

This winter, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management reversed course and canceled the bison grazing permits. Citing the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the agency said the federal grasslands where the animals grazed should go to livestock being raised for food, not bison largely enjoying their right to roam. The agency deemed the bison to be wildlife, not production livestock.

Yeah let’s do that with everything. If it’s mere wildlife, get rid of it; keep only the animals that humans like to make into burgers.

Conservation groups condemned the decision, as did Native American tribes, who say the anti-bison effort threatens their own herds as they try to revive bison populations that were hunted to near extinction by 19th-century settlers.

Blah blah blah. McDonald’s doesn’t care about conservation or Native American tribes. Get with the program.

But Montana ranchers like Perri Jacobs celebrated. She said the federal government, a perennial boogeyman for Western conservatives, finally seemed to be on her side.

“These lands are here for food,” said Ms. Jacobs, whose family has raised cows in northern Montana for nearly 110 years. “We have to understand that progress and time march forward. Bison just don’t fit on the landscape anymore.”

The lands are for food: they feed bison. The lands aren’t automatically “here for” whatever the new people decide they’re for.

The state’s powerful land board — which includes Mr. Gianforte and other high-ranking Republican elected officials — is also taking steps toward kicking bison off Montana state trust lands.

“We must ensure that public lands remain accessible and productive, rather than being locked away for the vision of special interests,” Mr. Gianforte said after the federal permits were canceled.

How is it “special interests” to try to preserve some existing wildlife and their habitats? How is that not a general interest? It seems to me the profits of ranchers are a pretty special interest.

CNN points out that Trump blatantly publicly lies a lot, including about stuff he is on the record as saying or doing.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump told reporters that he was “looking at” a new Iranian peace proposal. Then a reporter reminded Trump that he had said the previous night that the US might be better off not making a deal with Iran.

“Well, I wouldn’t have to. I didn’t say that,” Trump responded. “I said that if we left right now, it would take them 20 years to rebuild. But we’re not leaving right now. We’re gonna do it so nobody has to go back in two years or five years.”

In reality, Trump did say — on camera — what the reporter told him he said. His denial was yet another case in which the president wrongly asserted he hadn’t said something he had said in a public forum.

And “wrongly asserted” is journalistic code for “lied”.

It’s one thing for the president to try to deny having made a remark someone claimed he made in a private meeting. For years, Trump has attempted something more brazen: denying he ever made remarks the public saw him make.

In December 2025, for example, when an ABC News reporter asked Trump on camera whether he would release the video of the US military’s controversial follow-up strike on an alleged drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean, Trump said, “I don’t know what they have, but whatever they have we’d certainly release, no problem.” But when another ABC News reporter reminded him five days later that he said he would have no problem releasing the video, Trump falsely claimed, “I didn’t say that. That’s — you said that, I didn’t say that. This is ABC fake news.”

Mind you, he does talk so much, and at such high speed and with so little thought, it must be very difficult for him to keep track of what he has and hasn’t said.

During his 2024 campaign, Trump falsely denied he had said “lock her up” about his 2016 election opponent, Hillary Clinton, though he had done so on multiple occasions at televised rallies attended by thousands of people. During the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, he denied having made two remarks he had made on camera the previous week.

The previous week? He’ll have said millions of things since then, how can we expect him to keep track of them all?

It seems that the Pelicot case has been an inspiration for some.

European lawmakers have voted in favor of defining sex without active consent as rape, marking a historic step for women’s rights and survivors of sexual violence in the EU.

The European Parliament’s resolution, passed on Tuesday by an overwhelming margin, urges all EU member states to adopt an only “yes means yes” legal standard for consent while recognizing that a “yes” obtained through coercion is not valid.

The move seeks to replace the traditional “no means no” principle, which activists argue fails to protect victims by not requiring explicit, affirmative consent for sexual acts.

In other words “Hey, she didn’t say no” will no longer be the standard.

Dutch MEP Anna Strolenberg said that “a society that truly respects women does not ask whether they resisted enough, it asks whether they freely agreed.” She told CNN, “No one can consent while asleep, drugged, unaware or paralyzed by fear. Any law that leaves room for this doubt, leaves room for violence,”

At present, rape laws in Europe generally follow one of two models – consent-based, which considers rape a sexual act without consent, or coercion-based, which requires a sexual act to have taken place by force. Twenty-one of the EU’s 27 member states have adopted consent-based rape laws, according to Amnesty International, and in some, including Sweden and Spain, the law follows the “yes means yes” approach. Meanwhile, in countries like Hungary and Latvia, the law generally requires proof of use of force, threats, or coercion.

Which, oddly enough, is not always easy to provide – in fact it’s almost never easy to provide. Sorry, bitches.

In October 2025, France, after years of opposition, updated its criminal code to explicitly define rape as any sexual act committed without consent. The move followed a public reckoning in the wake of the landmark Pelicot trial, where 50 men were charged with the mass rape of Gisèle Pelicot, whose ex-husband Dominique Pelicot drugged her, and organized her rapes with men he met online.

A series of similar, high-profile drug-facilitated sexual abuse (DFSA) cases have also come to light in Europe. In December, a German man was found guilty of drugging and raping his unconscious wife over several years and filming the assaults.

While European lawmakers have historically struggled to agree on a unified, EU-wide definition of rape, Irish MEP Maria Walsh said that CNN’s recent reporting on an online “rape academy” has accelerated the debate.

CNN’s discovery of a Telegram group, where nearly 1,000 men shared step-by-step instructions on drugging and assaulting their partners, and which was part of a wider network of non-consensual image sharing, underlines “why a European-wide response is so badly needed” when it comes to prosecuting sexual assault, Walsh said.

Sigh. It’s so depressing to keep learning that so many men aren’t content with plain old-fashioned sex, but instead want to spice it up by degrading the women involved. You know? I mean…if you despise your wife that much why is she your wife at all? I just don’t get it. Why live with someone you hate enough to watch her being gangraped by a bunch of strangers at your behest?

I keep thinking that of all the possible hardships and deprivations we could undertake in an effort to mitigate global warming, surely giving up cruise ships should be an easy one. You’d think people with grandchildren would be able to manage that much.

Meanwhile:

Three people have died after a suspected hantavirus outbreak on a cruise ship sailing in the Atlantic Ocean, the World Health Organization (WHO) has told the BBC.

One case of hantavirus has been confirmed, with five more suspected cases under investigation, it said. One British national aged 69 is in intensive care in Johannesburg, South Africa.

The outbreak was reported aboard the MV Hondius cruise ship, which was travelling from Argentina to Cape Verde.

…

According to an itinerary on the Oceanwide Expeditions website, MV Hondius departed from Ushuaia in Argentina on 20 March and was expected to complete its journey on 4 May in Cape Verde.

It is described as a 107.6m (353ft) polar cruise ship, with space for 170 people in 80 cabins.

45 days of luxury carbon added to the total. Your grandchildren will not thank you.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Could completely reframe.

Elliot Page is back with a documentary that could completely reframe what we’re told is “natural”

“Reframing” doesn’t change reality, only our perceptions and explanations of it.

…scientists explore more than 1,500 animal species that display same-sex behaviour, change sex, raise young in Queer pairings and organise themselves outside rigid male-female hierarchies.

Penguins. Albatrosses. Clownfish. Bonobos.

Oh, look, it’s the same dishonest, misleading, irrelevant cherry-picking. All these check-marks ticked off in this-grab bag of forced-teamed “science” lack the one thing you hope we won’t notice, the one thing that you so desperately wish it would, because you’ve paid the price in your own flesh. Get back to us when you find humans (or even just a single mammal) that can change sex. This is just a bad-faith smoke screen that rehashes the pointless analogies that can’t support the arguments you can’t make.

The rest of the animate world is not the balm and comfort you would like it to be, or that you would have us believe. There are a multitude of “is-es” that you would never, ever want to become “oughts.” For every happy, glitter-rainbow story of clownfish and Bonobos, there are dozens of horror shows of unimaginable cruelty, pain, and suffering that would fuel the nightmares of a thousand lifetimes. The stories you would decide to highlight are few and far between compared to the multitude of ones you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy. Parasitism. Infanticide. Cannibalism. Rape.

Male lions routinely kill the cubs of females whose young have been fathered by another male. Those females routinely mate with those murderous males.

Birds that are the young of nest parasites will push the young of the host species out of the nest; in some species of bird, the first to hatch will push the unhatched eggs of what would have been their siblings out of the nest. In lean years, parent birds will let some of their chicks starve because there’s not enough food to go around.

There are parasites that cause their hosts engage in self-destructive behaviour that allows the parasite to complete its life cycle in the guts of the predator that catches and consumes the first, suicidal host.

And when it comes down to it, a lot of things that die are eaten alive. That can’t be fun.

Reaching for “natural” can get you bitten, in more ways then one. There are a whole lot of “natural” things you’d never want to see on the ingredient list of any of the groceries you buy, because they would kill you. Naturally. Horror, death, and pain are as much a part of how the world works as its awe-inspiring beauty and elegance, which is something Darwin felt keenly when he realized the tremendous cost of natural selection. The price of evolution is death of the unfit. Not just the death of the individual, but the extinction of entire species. Those who wish to apply this “natural” logic to human society as a whole are rightly reviled, because even though we arose from this process, we don’t have to employ it ourselves. We get to pick and choose. Do you want to draw upon these perfectly “natural” traits and behaviours and hold them up as models for humans to emulate? I would hope not. We are not lions, or parasitic wasps whose young slowly eat their hosts alive until they’re ready to emerge from the bodies of their victims. And no, we are not clownfish, either. Analogies are never perfect. some are less perfect than others. But mostly, analogy is not reality. It’s an echo or parallel, not identical. Not an “identity.”

Nature has no moral judgement above that of differential survival of naturally varying offspring, and their reproduction. And that survival is geared to and determined by current conditions. There is no planning for tomorrow, only the eternal now. Future usefulness of current traits is never guaranteed, only the luck of the draw. Today’s dominant phylum can easily become tomorrow’s experiment in taphonmy and fossilization. And “Nature?” No regrets, no tears. It doesn’t do “framing.” It’s not there to provide lessons or morals. It’s examples are multitudinous and contradictory, confounding and shocking human sensibilities. Nature has its own agenda, and making people feel less bad about their own poor, misguided choices is not part of it.

Sorry “Elliot”. You’re a mutilated, female, human, mammal.

Try again, but don’t blame “nature” or expect it to plead your case. The laws it follows aren’t ones you will find useful or comforting.

Hmmm. Not sure this is one hundred percent accurate.

Gay Star News on Facebook:

Elliot Page is back with a documentary that could completely reframe what we’re told is “natural”

In Second Nature, which Page narrates and co-produces, scientists explore more than 1,500 animal species that display same-sex behaviour, change sex, raise young in Queer pairings and organise themselves outside rigid male-female hierarchies.

Penguins. Albatrosses. Clownfish. Bonobos.

Turns out, the natural world never signed up to “biological reality” as it’s often weaponised.

Page put it bluntly this week: “This idea that nature is organized around a cis heteronormative system is just completely false.”

Well you don’t say. So is this idea that nature is organized around chess, or ballet, or the stock market, or figure skating. But the éclat fades out a little once you remember that there are a vast number of human practices and labels that nature is not organized around so it’s kind of odd to get all agitated about the fact that nature doesn’t have a human vocabulary.

Be careful out there.

A reader has pointed out that the knife guy stabbed three people, not two.

The Guardian:

A man has appeared in court charged with the attempted murders of three people during two knife attacks in London.

Essa Suleiman, 45, is accused of stabbing two Jewish men in Golders Green on Wednesday, having already attacked another man over a personal dispute in south London.

The prosecutor Emma Harraway told the court Suleiman had attacked Ishmail Hussein at his home in Southwark. He had then travelled to Golders Green, in north-west London, arriving shortly after 11am, and attacked two Jewish men.

Prosecutors said he first set upon Shloime Rand, 34, before attacking 76-year-old Norman Shine. They said both men were clearly identifiable as Orthodox Jews by their clothing.

Strange. I wonder if the thinking was “two Jews for every Muslim.”

I missed this one.

Trump: “You go to a grocery store, you have to give ID. You go to a gas station, you give ID. But for voting they want no voter ID. It's only for one reason: because they cheat." pic.twitter.com/76FrQ2V9xU

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) November 5, 2025

No you don’t.

I suppose he’s never been to a grocery store or a gas station.

From the Guardian four days ago on the Golders Green stabbings:

Prime minister Keir Starmer said he would visit Golders Green “as soon as possible” after today’s “appalling attack”.

He chaired a Cobra meeting after two people were stabbed in Golders Green, north-west London, in an incident that police are treating as a terrorism offence.

Starmer also said he would meet with criminal justice agencies on Thursday. Speaking to broadcasters, he said: “The Government is taking action in relation to security, cohesion, extremism, but of course it’s our responsibility to coordinate the immediate response here to this appalling attack, to ensure security is in place, to take other measures.”

Cohesion. Is cohesion even possible? Anywhere, ever? Are humans simply incapable of it? Are there always and everywhere differences that prompt and motivate and solidify the formation of tribes and thus rivalries?

The UK had a massive labor shortage after the war, and it recruited people from part of what had been The Empire. I wonder how much, if any, thought was given to the favored religion of that particular bit of The Empire, and how amenable it is to co-existing with other religions.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council have released a joint statement after the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green on Wednesday morning.

The statement said: “We are sickened by yet another terrorist attack on our community, this time targeting two visibly Jewish men on the streets of London. This comes after weeks of arson attacks targeting Jewish premises, and just seven months after two Jews were murdered in Manchester on Yom Kippur. For many in our community, this feels relentless.

“Our thoughts are with the victims, and we pray for their swift recovery. We also thank the police, Shomrim, Hatzola and CST for their swift response.”

The groups then outlined that there were factors which led to this event taking place. “We cannot ignore the context: a wave of antisemitic hatred driven by extremists at home and abroad, including Islamist extremism that motivated the Heaton Park attack, and attempts by the Iranian regime to orchestrate violence against British Jews,” it said.

Is the whole point of religion the creation of ferocious hatred of people outside one’s favored religion? It so often looks that way.

Who is the aggressor and who is the victim?

The Green party leader, Zack Polanski, thoughtlessly undermined the confidence of officers to deal with dangerous people by sharing a critical social media post after the Golders Green stabbings, according to the head of the Metropolitan police.

Officers were filmed detaining the suspect after two Jewish people were stabbed in the north-west London suburb on Wednesday.

Polanski retweeted, without comment, a post on X alleging that officers were “repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head” when he was already incapacitated by a stun gun.

In a letter to Polanski, the Met commissioner, Mark Rowley, described the claim as “inaccurate and misinformed commentary”. He praised the officers as “nothing short of extraordinary”, adding: “Without their efforts to stop him, I dread to think what the outcome could have been.”

More stabbings at least. A guy who stabs two Jewish people is probably looking to stab as many as he can before he is stopped.

Speaking on Friday morning, Rowley told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the letter was not an “intervention to politics” and expanded on his criticism of Polanski.

He said: “I’m simply dealing with operational policing and defending my officers because I want them to have confidence to protect Londoners … Officers need confidence in confronting these dangerous people, and if an eminent person thoughtlessly steps into that and undermines that, then I’m going to deal with that.”

He added: “Of course there will always be inaccuracies, eccentricities and nonsense online. But when someone eminent puts something out there, which goes fundamentally to the confidence in my officers to act in the protection of London, when we’ve had two officers confront someone they believe to be a terrorist, who wasn’t complying and they were afraid he might have an explosive device – can you imagine fear and how difficult it is to deal with? I’ve sat down with those officers when they’re in shock after the event. Those officers need to know they’ve got my support, and public support, when they do that.”

It’s so difficult trying to keep track of which people are the wicked powerful oppressors and which are the downtrodden victims.

Another win for the cheaters.

A settlement has been finalised in trans powerlifter JayCee Cooper’s case against USA Powerlifting after the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the organisation violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act by barring her from women’s competitions.

But Cooper is not of course a trans powerlifter, he’s a trans woman, i.e. a man. How is it a violation of human rights to bar a man from women’s competitions? How is it not a violation of women’s rights to force them to compete against men?

The settlement was announced on 28 April by the Legal Director at Gender Justice, which represented Cooper, as per CBS News. They said: “We celebrate this victory, but we also remain vigilant and ready to take action to ensure that all Minnesotans, including transgender Minnesotans, can participate in sports, schools, employment, and health care without facing discrimination because of who they are.”

But male transgender Minnesotans could compete against their own (stronger/faster) sex instead of insisting on competing against the other, not as strong or fast sex. They don’t have to compete against women; they want to, whether because they will win or because it’s fun to be shitty to women or both.

The dispute started when Cooper, a transgender woman, was barred from entering two women’s powerlifting competitions back in 2018.

A transgender woman is a man, therefore he should not be entering women’s competitions. End of story.

She sued, arguing that it was discrimination under Minnesota law. USA Powerlifting claimed its approach was based on what it described as “strength advantages” related to sex assigned at birth, rather than Cooper being transgender.

Yes, strength advantages, not “related to” but rooted in sex at birth (and until death). Those advantages are real. They’re not something that belongs in scare quotes.

Graham Linehan writes:

For 10 years, a small group of activists has used the police and the courts as their private army. The Supreme Court has finally said what most people already knew. Now the state has to catch up.

For over a decade now, ever since I first spoke up for women in the face of an aggressive rights grab by trans activists, I’ve been pursued by a small group of men who seemingly use UK police as their private goon squad.

“Stephanie” Hayden, “Lindsay” Watson, and more recently “Sophia” Brooks could not have generated a more enthusiastic police response if they’d been wearing chief superintendent’s uniforms.

Has that ever been the case when the favored set of people was not men pretending to be women, but just plain women? The kind who don’t have to pretend because they really are the thing they would be pretending to be? Why, in short, are men who pretend to be women so fascinating to the cops while just plain women bore them into comas?

My view is that there’s no such thing as “trans people”. There are transvestites, transsexuals, perverts, and distressed young women suffering from a virulently fashionable new form of anorexia. In other words, men and women in various states of distress and confusion.

But there are also predatory petty criminals and sadistic activists, and it’s these in particular for whom UK police seemingly cannot do enough.

It’s one of the reasons I left the UK. I couldn’t be sure I wouldn’t get a knock at the door at any moment, from a police force that works harder for men dressed as women than it ever has for women themselves.

Again, why is that? I mean, it’s not as if women have no value at all. Even if you think women are boring feeble demanding pampered bitches, the fact remains that without women there are no people at all. Women do the gestation and pushing out thing, and there is no one else who can do it, so isn’t that some reason to think women are not just useless expensive trash? Just a thought.

Set the slow, feeble response to the Rotherham rape gangs against the speed and efficiency the police bring to a complaint from a trans activist. The miracle of modern British policing is that a man only has to put on a dress to be treated, finally, like a woman should be.

…

Keir Starmer famously said it was wrong to claim that only women had a cervix. David Lammy seemed to think men could actually grow one. We have a political class so terrified of being called bigots by the millennials in their staff that they’re prepared to look completely ridiculous in public. I fear nothing will change while such useful idiots are in charge.

Maybe we have to wait for the next generation to be old enough to kick the millennials out.

Trump considers himself a dictator. He wouldn’t necessarily use that word but he is very clear in his own mind that his power is without limit.

Just his, mind you. Not any other president’s, past or future.

When a federal judge shot down a Trump administration policy of holding immigrants without bond last December, it seemed like a serious blow to the president’s mass deportation effort.

Instead, a top Justice Department official insisted the ruling wasn’t binding, and the administration continued denying detainees around the country a chance for release.

Top Justice Department Official to federal judge: You’re not the boss of us.

By February, the district court judge, Sunshine Sykes, was fed up. Sykes, a nominee of President Joe Biden, accused Trump officials in a ruling that month of seeking “to erode any semblance of separation of powers,” adding that they could “only do so in a world where the Constitution does not exist.”

Trump officials do not care.

Hardly isolated, the case illustrates a broader pattern of defiance of lower court decisions in President Donald Trump’s second term.

The failure of Trump officials to follow court orders has been highlighted most notably in individual immigration cases. But a review of hundreds of pages of court records by The Associated Press also shows an extraordinary record of violations in lawsuits over policy changes and other moves.

So we are in a dictatorship. Nothing can stop him, and he does whatever he wants, so what else could we call it?

In the second Trump administration’s first 15 months in office, district court judges ruled it was violating an order in at least 31 lawsuits over a wide range of issues, including mass layoffs, deportations, spending cuts and immigration practices, the AP’s review of court records found. That’s about one out of every eight lawsuits in which courts have at least temporarily blocked the administration’s actions.

…

The Trump administration violations in the 31 lawsuits are in addition to more than 250 instances of noncompliance judges have recently highlighted in individual immigration petitions — from failing to return property to keeping immigrants locked up past court-ordered release dates.

Legal scholars and former federal judges said they could recall at most a few violations of court rulings over the full four-year terms of other recent presidential administrations, including Trump’s first time in office. They also noted previous administrations were generally apologetic when confronted by judges; the Trump administration’s Justice Department has been outright combative in some cases.

…

The AP’s review also found that higher courts, including the Supreme Court, overruled the district courts and sided with the White House in nearly half of the 31 cases. Critics say those decisions are emboldening the administration to ignore judges’ orders.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the higher courts had overturned “unlawful district court rulings.” The administration will “continue to comply with lawful court rulings,” she added in a written statement.

And it will decide which ones those are.

Very reassuring.

Another one.

LONDON — Metropolitan Police say they have arrested a 45-year-old man in connection with a stabbing attack that injured two Jewish people in London, which they called a “terrorist incident.”

“A 45-year-old man, who is a British national, born in Somalia, was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder,” Metropolitan Police said in a statement. “He was initially taken to hospital but has since been discharged and has been taken to a London police station where he remains in police custody.”

Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor told reporters that counterterrorism officers are investigating and working to establish “whether this attack was deliberately targeting the Jewish community in London,” while Commissioner Mark Rowley called it an “attack on British Jews.”

Britain’s prime minister earlier described the incident in the North London suburb of Golders Green as an “antisemitic attack.” The neighborhood, which has a large Jewish population, has been the scene of a number of antisemitic incidents in recent weeks.

On and on and on it goes.

Lara Brown at the Spectator:

Maybe sex realists really are winning the gender wars. But for every two steps we take forward we are relentlessly pushed at least one back. The most recent victory in the war against common sense has seen the University of Sussex dodge a £585,000 fine over their free speech policies. The fine was awarded after Professor Kathleen Stock was hounded out of her job five years ago following sustained protests over her views on transgender rights and gender identity.

She was hounded out of her academic job for not believing that men can be women. I will never get over how grotesque that is.

The Office for Students (OfS) spent three and a half years investigating the circumstances that led to Stock’s departure. Their final report is damning. It notes that the university’s ‘Trans and Non-Binary Equality Statement’ requires ‘any materials within relevant courses and modules [to] positively represent trans people and trans lives’ and makes vague statements such as ‘transphobic propaganda … will not be tolerated’. These requirements all effectively censored course materials and created a culture in which any expression of gender-critical thought was believed by many to be a disciplinary offence.

And what even is gender-critical thought? Just knowing that men are not and cannot be women. That’s it, that’s the thought. And it’s verboten.

In the OfS’s own words, ‘a chilling effect was created because the university indicated, through these restrictions, that the expression of certain lawful speech and views was not acceptable at the university’. The result of this policy was obvious to anyone who followed Kathleen Stock’s final years at Sussex. She was harassed by masked students protesting outside her lectures, ‘Stock out’ posters were plastered across the university, flares were set off, and many of her own colleagues signed an open letter condemning her ‘harmful rhetoric’. At one point, just to do her job, Stock had to appoint private security.

Her crime? Writing a book in which she claimed gender identity should not supplant biological sex. Sussex University did little to nothing to defend Stock from the abuse. The Vice-Chancellor at the time, Adam Tickell, seemed more interested in pursuing his new equality, diversity and inclusion strategy

But not real equality and certainly not real inclusion. Women who refuse to say that a man is a woman are very much not included.

Trump demonstrates his shortage of cognitive dazzle in the act of claiming he has the most cognitive dazzle. People with real cognitive dazzle tend not to brag about it, because they’re clever enough to realize that it’s not attractive and it’s a mine field. Trump doesn’t grasp either of those not very complicated thoughts.

At 25 seconds he shouts that he’s the only president to take a cognitive test. Sir, sir, that’s because the gaping holes in your cognitive function are so massive and so fraught with peril that even the people around you know it’s a problem.

He goes on to say Obama’s rilly rilly stupid and he, Trump, is rilly rilly not.

It’s funny how Obama never ever ever got up on a stage to brag about how clever he is.

Update: It’s probably fake; see Harald’s comment.

It’s cropped a little at the bottom – look at the original to see what the eagle is doing.

Also how does Lady Lib manage to deliver the baby without rumpling the flag at all? New technology is it? And why are some soldier dudes standing around watching a woman deliver a “baby”? Did she get any say in the matter?

Bro needs to retire from public and private life. pic.twitter.com/ZFUUUUhDMW

— John Bourscheid 🇺🇸 🚀 (@bourscheid) May 1, 2026