Category: Notes and Comment Blog

  • Guest post: Actually, you did, bro

    Originally a barn-burner of a comment by Artymorty on Their own unnerstanding of their genner idenniny.

    Yeah but but but

    It’s all so far away. It’s all about some vague, distant “they, them, those people” off in the hazy distance somewhere. The hazy trans distance.

    I hate it.

    The rest of us have a right to SEE PEOPLE’S SEX, clearly.

    WE CAN SEE IT!!!

    You are free to play whatever pretend games you want about your “soul” or our “body thetans” or your “gender identity”. Go the fuck ahead.

    But we are free to visibly observe your actual material sex and make our own decisions about you based on it. Whether or not to date you, or to let you into our private circles and spaces, for example. That is our right.

    And a lot of people who think they’re being allies — upstanding citizens, good little liberals, virtuous pillars of progressivism — they forget that trans extremists aren’t just meekly asking for permission to play pretendzies in front of us, they’re demanding that we LEGALLY comply with their sex-pretend roleplaying game, to such an extreme that we are obligated to pretend it’s literally true, on pain of social and criminal punishment.

    Of course our transwoman friends have a right to believe they’re “real women” in the privacy of their minds! That’s religion 101. My Muslim and Christian friends are free to believe in their crazy (frankly gross) shit, too. Duh! I manage to have religious friends despite finding their religions gross, and they no doubt don’t buy into my beliefs either. But we make it work. That’s cosmopolitanism 101.

    And we’re not obligated to believe the same as each other. That’s secularism 101.

    I’ve found a little hack to get this point through to straight men, and it works incredibly well. Seriously, I’ve pulled this rhetorical move a few times now, in a few different instances of arguments with straight guys about the trans thing, and the result has been instantaneous and jarring. It’s a powerful move:

    Straight guys describe transwomen in terms of “letting” “them” (way over there somewhere) have their little beliefs. It’s all about letting some distant people do their freaky eccentric thing, from a distance.

    So I ask these straight men blunt sexual questions about their attraction to transwomen over actual female women. When straight men say, “transwomen are women,” I challenge them: surely they mean it truly, all the way down to finding them sexually attractive in the same way that actual women are, right? Of course, you find a neovagina consructed out of a young gay man’s anus flesh the same as an actual vagina, right?

    Of course they don’t, and of course they’re not even willing to lie about it.

    It’s instantaneous. “That’s not what I meant when I said transwomen are women! I only meant they are allowed to believe they’re women to themselves! I never said ***I*** have to believe they’re female!”

    Actually, you did, bro. You implied it so strongly, that that’s why these gay men went out and got neovaginas, and that’s why the industry carries on. Because men like you ARE TELLING VULNERABLE GAY MEN THAT THEY CAN BE “REAL” WOMEN IN ***YOUR EYES***, BECAUSE YOU ARE PUBLICLY SAYING SO.

    Well, you are publicly avoiding contradicting it, in any case. And you’re either attacking those of us who do, and/or siding with those who attack us.

    And then you sneak off and abandon the trans people you pretended to support, once it comes time to actually date and fuck them.

    You are the assholes.

    It works surprisingly well, to remind these bystanders that they aren’t entirely bystanders when they play along with gender woo…

  • Their own unnerstanning of their genner idenniny

    Seen on Facebook:

    People should be free to make their own choices and to be who they are, including their sexuality and gender identity; without other people trying to pressure them into a different sexuality or gender identity.

    The point is to allow people to help others reach their own understanding of their sexuality and gender identity, and to stop people trying to ‘direct’ others towards a predetermined outcome.

    Sounds cuddly, but is confused. People thinking they have a “gender identity” that is the opposite of their sex are suffering from a delusion. Freedom broadly speaking is a good thing, but that doesn’t mean that every idenniny we can invent for ourselves is either real or beneficial. Freedom to pretend to be a woman when you are in fact a man is a violation of the freedom of women to avoid men in some circumstances.

  • Commemorating what?

    Egomania strikes again.

    President Donald Trump unveiled a new rendering of a special commemorative US passport bearing his likeness Friday, debuting a limited-edition passport to mark America’s 250th anniversary this year.

    “The U.S.A.’s New Passport, which says, ‘Welcome, but be good!’” Trump posted on Truth Social.

    He included a sample passport page featuring an image of him looming over the Resolute Desk, the text of the original Declaration of Independence in the background and his signature on the bottom. The opposite page has an image of the “The Declaration of Independence” painting by John Trumbull.

    Sigh. Passports aren’t supposed to have priddy pikshers of the current president scowling into a camera.

    The new passport appears to feature a rendering of Trump based off of [on] the president’s portrait from the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery in Washington, and differs from renderings released by the State Department earlier this year, which featured a different image of the president.

    The image, of course, is ludicrous – Tump’s familiar petulant scowl, aka constipated baby face.

    The new limited-edition travel document was first announced in April as part of the nation’s 250th anniversary celebration. It was billed as “a limited-edition U.S. passport to commemorate the historic occasion of America’s 250th anniversary,” featuring “custom artwork and enhanced images on the front, back, and inside covers.”

    Yeah yeah 250 whoopee, only it’s not looking so much like a celebration now, is it. The U.S. is now the deeply sick country that elected this horrendous man not once but twice. What’s to celebrate?

  • Notwithstanding legal recognition as male

    What kind of selfish goon would want it to be otherwise?

    Matrix Chambers news:

    The European Court of Human Rights has declared inadmissible an application challenging the UK’s requirement that a transgender man with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) who gives birth must be registered as the child’s “mother”.

    What kind of horrible self-adoring person would want make sure her kid had no mother?

    The case followed domestic proceedings culminating in the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (X) v Registrar General for England and Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 559, which held that a transgender man who carried and gave birth to a child is to be recorded as “mother” on the birth certificate, notwithstanding legal recognition as male.

    Just goes to show how incoherent and confused this ridiculous ideology is. Be as dudely and non-conforming as you want – I even sympathize, having never felt comfortable in the more girly-coded dress and appearance conventions for female people – but don’t even consider making your child think it never had a mother.

    The Court underlined that when hearing cases brought by a parent and/or their child, national courts cannot only take into account the interests invoked by the parent but must take into account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration.

    Gosh, ya think?

  • Sir have you read it at all?

    Wrong.

    As thousands of people line up to say: Yes it is too so in the Constitution, not in those words, but for sure in that meaning.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    The second clause probably has a lot to do with why and how the Catholic church has been able to get away with so much evil shit for so long. If Dan Patrick had a brain cell he would realize that the First Amendment is a gift to religion, as well as a constraint on its power.

  • 47 subpoenas

    Now this could get interesting.

    Trump’s inner circle subpoenaed by BBC in US libel lawsuit

    The British Broadcasting Corporation issued a wave of subpoenas to dozens of members of President Donald Trump’s inner circle as part of its defense in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit, raising fresh questions about Trump’s speech before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

    The BBC in recent weeks sent 47 subpoenas to members of Trump’s family and Cabinet, as well as the Department of Justice and other federal agencies, seeking information about the president’s intent and state of mind before the speech. Recipients include Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Michael Flynn.

    If they lie about it, they could get in very big trouble.

    In a joint filing Wednesday in federal court in Florida, lawyers for Trump and the BBC requested a hearing on the subpoenas. Trump argues the demands are part of a “fishing expedition,” while the BBC says Trump’s lawsuit opened the door to the requests for information about his conduct.

    To win the case, Trump “must prove that he did not foment or incite the January 6 Capitol riot,” the BBC said. “Plaintiff has placed that question directly at issue in bringing this libel lawsuit – he cannot now prevent defendants from seeking records that would shed light on his true knowledge, intent, and state of mind in delivering his speech.”

    …

    Kevin O’Brien, a former federal prosecutor and defense attorney who isn’t involved in the case, said the BBC strategy appears to be a “smart tactic” to refocus the dispute back onto Trump’s conduct and the events of Jan. 6.

    “Of course, enforcing 47 subpoenas, with all those depositions and motions to compel, is an expensive proposition, and time-consuming too,” he said.

    But worth it. Very worth it.

  • Solidarity but not for you

    Councillors vote to condemn women’s rights.

    Edinburgh councillors have voted to condemn guidance from the EHRC as “discriminatory against trans people”. 

    A motion put forward by the Scottish Greens at Thursday’s council meeting was supported by the Liberal Democrats and SNP.

    Yes how dare women have rights?

    Councillor Alex Staniforth remarked: “Human rights associations across the board have condemned the EHRC guidance … it didn’t have to be this way. As much as I have my issues with the Supreme Court decision of the For Women Scotland case, they made it clear that their judgment should not be considered as a case of one side winning over another. 

    “We do have a voice and it is our duty to raise that voice in solidarity with all trangender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people that live in and visit our city.”

    But not women. Never women. Good god no.

    There will be some women among the approved trangender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people, perhaps, but the solidarity is not for their womanness but for their trangender, non-binary, and gender non-conformingness. Just plain women without any genderish bells and whistles are worthless and evil. Make a note of it.

    The updated Equality Act Code of Practice was drafted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and responds to recent legal decisions related to sex and gender.

    Progressive groups have criticised parts of the code they say is discriminatory against transgender people, while some women’s rights campaigners have said it protects female-only spaces.

    Oh look what The Herald did there – they framed women as a category separate from progressive groups – in other words women are reactionary as opposed to progressive. All women; women as such; women who dare to defend women’s rights instead of the purported rights of people who want to eradicate women’s rights. Reactionary bitches R us.

    For example, paragraph 12.66 of the code states: “The Act permits associations of any size or character, other than political parties, to restrict their membership to persons who share a protected characteristic.”

    As such, under the guidance, it would be lawful to prohibit a trans woman from joining a woman-only association. 

    Yes, because trans women are men, so they don’t belong to, and don’t have any right to belong to, women-only associations.

    Councillor Fiona Bennett added: “I was so upset this morning to listen to what I found to be extremely emotional and powerful equations. I was even more upset to see the cold responses from the Conservative and Labour parties. How could you not be moved by what was being said?

    “Is the safety and dignity of trans people less important than yours? Two things can exist at the same time, the vulnerability of one group does not erase that of another.”

    Well. The vulnerability of “trans people” does not erase that of women, is what you mean. But what about the other way around? You in fact think that mentioning the vulnerability of women does erase the purported vulnerability of men who call themselves women. That’s why you keep attacking women defending our rights.

    Commenting on the motion prior to the vote, campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) said the Greens were “once again” engaging in “performative stunts”. 

    “The arguments here are as tired as they are cliched, and betray a lack of knowledge of law and practice. They are deluded if they believe that withdrawing the guidance will make any difference to law,” the group remarked.

     “All it will do is ensure that businesses and organisations have to take individual legal advice at great cost. This is petulant sixth-form politics and as legally illiterate as it is futile.”

    I’m on team Those Women.

  • Officialese

    Official statement from official White House:

    Crazed and deranged lunatics have once again exposed their hatred for America with a cowardly, deliberate attack on one of our nation’s most iconic landmarks — the newly renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

    President Donald J. Trump was right from the beginning. Fake News hacks and so-called “experts” immediately rushed to mock him, call him a liar, and blame the Trump Administration’s successful renovation instead of the vandals — but they were dead wrong.

    Surveillance video captures suspects in the act. Photos and law enforcement reports document deliberate slashes cut through the liner, sides, and coating, as well as fencing and debris thrown into the pool. At least seven individuals have been arrested, seven others have been issued federal citations, and 18 police reports have been filed.

    This isn’t random mischief — it’s targeted sabotage by anti-American crackpots who despise a strong, proud, and beautiful country. They cannot build; they can only destroy. They cannot celebrate our heritage; they can only deface it.

    National pride will not be surrendered to a handful of deranged anti-American lunatics. Thanks to the Trump Administration’s decisive action, advanced nanobubble ozone technology has already neutralized the algae and repairs to vandalized areas are underway. The Reflecting Pool will yet again be restored to its rightful glory as America celebrates its 250th birthday.

    President Trump won’t be deterred from making our Reflecting Pool beautiful.

    Obviously not at all written by Trump himself, no indeed.

  • Hotter

    We’re not ready.

    I’m finding the heatwave hitting Europe really scary. It’s bad enough in itself, with many records being broken, especially for the higher nighttime temperatures that make it so much harder to cope. But I just keep thinking, “If it’s like this now, what’s it going to be like in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time?”

    The answer, of course, is hotter and hotter and hotter. In the UK, national weather service the Met Office has just warned that, by 2056, there could be nine days in a row with temperatures above 40°C (104°F), with some places hitting 45°C (113°F). In just 30 years!

    …

    Climate scientists are continually warning of the need to prepare for hotter heatwaves, worse droughts, more flooding and rising seas. During heatwaves like this one, they might even get a little media coverage. But then the weather cools, the news agenda moves on and nothing is ever done.

    Tragedy of the commons. They aren’t doing anything, so it’s pointless for me to do anything. Times 8.3 billion.

  • Left the oven on

    They are FLEEING!

  • Guest post: Witnesses are under oath

    Originally a comment by maddog on The tribunal will use preferred pronouns.

    Witnesses are under oath to tell the truth. The truth requires the use of truthful language, including language that correctly and truthfully signifies the actual (truthful) sex of the person being referred to.

    Lawyers are officers of the court, and they are duty bound to be truthful and honest before the court/tribunal.

    A court/tribunal is a forum for determining the truth. The court/tribunal must remain impartial in its fact-finding function.

    How can telling the truth be “inappropriate”? What’s inappropriate is the court/tribunal putting its thumb on the scale in favor of one party over another; it’s particularly inapprpriate to put its thumb on the scale in favor of known falsehood.

    Here, the tribunal is dishonest, and is influencing others to be dishonest. The whole thing stinks.

  • Found liable for sexual assault

    The Daily Beast seems to think it’s tiresome of a woman to object to rapists on chat shows.

    Jimmy Fallon may have a hard time booking actress Christina Ricci on his show anytime soon.

    Well, that’s one way of putting it. The flippant, dismissive way. Another way would be to say actress Christina Ricci objects to Jimmy Fallon’s having a rapist on his show.

    The former child star turned Emmy-nominated actress, 46, blasted the late-night host with a repost on Instagram on Monday, declaring he should be “ashamed” after he had Irish UFC fighter Conor McGregor, 37, on his show last week.

    McGregor was found liable for sexual assault in 2024 after he was sued by former hairstylist Nikita Hand. The woman was awarded $285,000 in damages following an eight-day trial.

    But the Daily Beast finds it appropriate to translate that to a joke about booking her on his show. Hur hur, women are so irritable about rape, aren’t they funny.

    McGregor’s career has continued apace, with Fallon inviting him to The Tonight Show to promote his return to the UFC at UFC 329 on June 16. Ricci circulated a viral post slamming the host that reads, “Conor McGregor raped a woman so brutally that the EMT who saw her commented on the severity of her bruising. She also had to have the tampon she was using when he raped her surgically removed, as it had been shoved so far inside her. Why the ABSOLUTE F— is this piece of human garbage being given a platform on Jimmy Fallon’s show?”

    She wasn’t joking. Why is The Daily Beast joking?

  • Not responsive

    Sane person keeps asking “What damage was done to the reflecting pool?” Sniveling regime lackey keeps ignoring the question and answering questions that no one asked. Governance trump-style.

  • Er kner wher er erm

    What’s wrong with this tweet? And a billion others like it?

    I’ll tell you.

    Obsession with self.

    That’s it; that’s the gaping black hole in all of this: the delusion that self is the most important thing in the universe.

    It’s not.

    Just forget the damn self. Not necessarily even in an altruistic way, but just in the obvious and practical sense that there is so much more to think about and work with and learn about than one single self, and here all these damn fools are obsessing over their magic spiritual jennderrz. Do something else! Anything else! Look outward! Go for a walk in a forest, learn a language, campaign against global warming, grow a garden, go sailing.

    It’s more interesting, it’s more fun, and you’ll stop being quite such a pain in the ass.

  • If they do not affirm

    Let’s make it a crime for parents to tell young Billy “No you’re not a girl.”

    The government has published a draft bill to ban “conversion practices”.

    While there are improvements on previous drafts of this law, it remains an attempt to shift “Stonewall Law” – now slowly being driven out of workplaces and services – into homes and classrooms.

    It puts parents, therapists, teachers and partners at risk of being subjected to investigation if they do not affirm that someone is “male” or “female “ (or both, or neither) based on their personal declaration rather than their biology. 

    And that someone can be their own damn child.

    The offence of carrying out an abusive conversion practice on an individual is defined in terms of causing “serious harm” to the individual’s physical or mental health, or “serious alarm or distress to the individual which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities”. This could potentially mean a wife telling her husband to stop wearing her clothes, parents telling a child they will not pay for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or a school insisting on referring to all children accurately as girls or boys, in line with its safeguarding responsibilities. 

    Not to mention its avoiding confusion responsibilities.

  • Skip the ba dum cha

    Sigh. All Xs are Zs does not mean all Zs are Xs.

    It’s a good idea to be clear on that point, because if you’re not, you’ll get a lot of things wrong.

    Damn fool confuses “no men are women” with “women are nothing but their reproductive systems”.

  • No exit

    Allah hates female people.

    When Fatima arrived at a district court in northern Afghanistan in late 2025 with her parents, she hoped a judge would finally allow her to leave her calamitous marriage.

    She had never met her husband before their arranged wedding in the summer of 2024. Each time her family asked to see him, they were told he was shy. It was only on the wedding day, relatives say, that Fatima understood what had been hidden from her: her husband had severe intellectual and physical disabilities and could not eat, wash or dress himself without help.

    In the months that followed, Fatima cooked, cleaned, cared for her husband and tended the family’s livestock. She was rarely allowed to leave the house.

    Hello, that’s not marriage, it’s slavery. The parents enslaved her, and refuse to let her leave.

    Finally, her parents agreed to go to court and help Fatima ask for a divorce.

    “In front of everyone, the judge asked my son-in-law only one question: ‘Who is this woman?’” recalls Shirin*, Fatima’s mother. “He answered: ‘She is my wife.’ Then the judge turned to the groom’s family and said: ‘Take your bride.’”

    Two Taliban soldiers pointed their weapons at Fatima’s parents as her in-laws seized her and dragged her toward their car.

    “My daughter was screaming and crying that she did not want to go with them,” Shirin says. “But nobody listened.”

    It’s all very spiritual, don’t you think?

    In April 2026, the Taliban leader, Hibatullah Akhundzada, issued a new decree on the judicial separation of spouses, setting out 12 grounds on which a marriage can be dissolved. On paper, some appear to give women a path to court. In practice, each path is blocked by the authority of men: the consent of a husband, the discretion of a judge, the testimony of witnesses, or the power of male relatives. Even in cases of abuse or neglect, the decree states that judges and arbiters cannot grant a divorce without the husband’s consent.

    Because women are complete garbage, only they’re worse because they can plot. No suspicion is too deep, no discipline is too harsh, no depravation is too extreme. Women are deeply necessary because penis, but women are also infinitely evil, so they must be punished every waking minute, no matter how tired the punishers get.

  • The tribunal will use preferred pronouns

    It uses the pronouns or it gets the hose.

    We are asking you to use a contorted peculiar anti-factual way of referring to this person who claims to be special, despite the fact that you disagree with the ideology that says the person is special and despite the fact that this brand of coercive bullshit is what this very hearing is about.

    It’s like being in a super-sized spider web, you escape one bit of it only to be entangled by another.

  • Suppressing the vote in broad daylight

    Newsweek reports:

    Lawmakers have slammed Postmaster General David Steiner after he announced that a proposed new rule would mean the United States Postal Service (USPS) won’t deliver mail ballots unless states share their voter lists with the Trump administration.

    Testifying before a Senate committee on Wednesday, Steiner was asked if USPS would still mail out ballots to states that refused to hand over their absentee voter lists. “No,” he responded. “We would tell the state that we need the manifest.”

    This is called voter suppression. It’s bad.

    The new proposal from the USPS, which has traditionally been nonpartisan and neutral, arises from President Donald Trump’s March 31 executive order.

    The order, titled “Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” marked one of the administration’s most sweeping efforts to reshape election administration and mail voting rules ahead of the 2026 midterms.

    The order directed federal agencies to create lists of verified U.S. citizens eligible to vote by mail, instructed the USPS to send absentee ballots only to voters on approved lists, and called for ballot-tracking measures including unique barcodes on mail ballot envelopes.

    In other words suppress as many votes as possible.

    Trump has repeatedly criticized mail voting and argued that it increases the risk of election fraud, despite election officials from both parties consistently saying that widespread voter fraud is rare. The president has continued to push for tighter restrictions on mail ballots since returning to office in January 2025, making the issue a central part of his election-integrity agenda.

    “Mail-in voting is totally corrupt—get that through your head, it has to be,” he said during a Michigan rally on February 17, 2024.

    You know who is genuinely corrupt?

    Yes, of course you do. We all do.

    H/t marcel proust

  • Starting the voter suppression early

    Trump is tightening the screws on voting rights.

    President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell this morning, canceling plans to sign a bipartisan landmark housing affordability bill until he gets action on his controversial elections overhaul legislation. He’s expected to press senators at a GOP lunch today to pass the “SAVE America Act” by any means necessary.

    So Trump. To hell with making housing affordable for the non-billionaires, first ya gotta suppress the vote.

    The Brennan Center:

    For months, we have warned of a drive by President Trump and his administration to undermine the 2026 election. It is unprecedented, outlandish. Now Trump himself is blaring his intent — and over the past week, the public issue has exploded. The fight for a free and fair vote is taking shape, starting on the floor of the House this week as it once again considers the SAVE Act.

    Make no mistake: The SAVE Act would stop millions of American citizens from voting. It would be the most restrictive voting bill ever passed by Congress. It is Trump’s power grab in legislative garb.

    Today, the House Rules Committee is voting to send the measure to the full House for a vote. Effectively, the bill would require Americans to produce a passport or birth certificate to register and thus to vote. Brennan Center research shows that 21 million people lack ready access to these documents. Half of all Americans don’t have a passport, for example. and millions of married women who have changed their names might need to jump through extra hoops to vote.

    Always put the burden on women. It’s only fair.

    The measure likely will pass the House, as it did in an earlier form last year. Once again, it will be up to senators to block it. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) declared it “dead on arrival.” But this time around, a mobilized outside drive is pushing lawmakers to restrict voting. “It must be done or democracy is dead,” instructed Elon Musk. The SAVE Act will not expire quietly, surrounded by loved ones. It’s on all of us to stand up and speak out, once again.

    And now we see how it fits into the broader strategy.

    In recent days, Trump has repeatedly demanded that Republicans “nationalize” the elections on behalf of his political party. Each time his aides try to clean up his remarks, he doubles down. “A state is an agent for the federal government in elections,” he wrongly insisted.

    Constitutionally, that’s upside-down land. The Constitution is unambiguous: States run elections. Presidents have no role. 

    Unless/until they are Donald Trump. That’s in the fine print.

    Steve Bannon, the Trump strategist who served prison time for defying a congressional subpoena, declared on Tuesday, “We’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November. We’re not going to sit here and allow you to steal the country again.” When we see how politicized and aggressive immigration forces have become, that threat becomes more than a podcaster’s bombast.

    Here, the law is clear: That would be a federal crime. My colleague Sean Morales-Doyle explains: “Can the president send troops or ICE agents to polling places? No — both federal and state laws explicitly prohibit the federal government from carrying out these implied threats.” It’s a federal crime to intimidate voters, too.

    But can we enforce it?