Ominous:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday unveiled a new Commission on Unalienable Rights, a panel he said is aimed at providing him with “an informed review of the role of human rights in American foreign policy.”

The panel will be headed up by Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard law professor and former ambassador to the Vatican under George W. Bush. Glendon is also a social conservative who has been a prominent anti-abortion voice, which could lend credence to the concerns among human rights activists that the commission is a ploy to undercut LGBTQ and women’s rights under the guise of religious liberty.

Ya think?

“Every once in a while we need to step back, and reflect seriously on where we are, where we’ve been and whether we’re headed in the right direction,” Pompeo said. He hailed former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt’s 1948 Declaration on Universal Human Rights as one of the foundational documents for the commission’s work, but noted that the panel would serve as advisers as opposed to policymakers.

While Pompeo was vague in laying out what exactly the panel will do, emphasizing its focus on “principles” over “policy,” he praised its members as those he hoped would facilitate “one of the most profound reexaminations of the unalienable rights in the world since the 1948 universal declaration.”

Overseen by Mike Pompeo and a former ambassador to the Vatican, under the auspices of the Trump administration. I don’t think so.

The commission will be made up of 10 members who represent a range of religious backgrounds. Many are religious scholars, with at least one other joining Glendon in having been appointed to represent the Vatican on social issues in the past. One, Hamza Yusuf, is one of the founders of the first Muslim liberal arts college in America. Another, Christopher Tollefsen, specializes in moral philosophy, natural law ethics, practical ethics and bioethics.

Why religious backgrounds? What’s religion got to do with it? Much religious “morality” is horrendous.

Sen. Bob Menendez, the top ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, called Pompeo’s claims that human rights had been manipulated “absurd” and asserted the new commission would only weaken human rights.

“President Trump’s personal affection for gross human rights violators has stained America’s moral fabric,” he said, pointing to the president’s praise for leaders such as North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte. “No Trump Administration commission can erase that.”

What I’m saying. This is the Trump administration. Human rights are not in their wheelhouse.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Which twin has the view?

(Notice Williams isn’t simultaneously trying to redefine “man”? Funny, that.)

Kinda gives the game away, doesn’t it?

Why do they define womanhood like this? Because it effectively excludes trans women from the class of women because trans women are not biologically identical to cis women.

GC feminists are just mean girls who are trying to keep transwomen out of the clubhouse. Changing the rules, moving the goalposts out pure spite.

“Centering” transness turns the dictionary itself into a transphobic, TERF plot to deny the REAL Cool Girls their due rights. When you think the universe is supposed to revolve around you, any bits that don’t are by definition doing so just to piss you off.

Sorry, welcome to Earth. It revolves around the Sun, not you. That plot started 4.6 odd billion years ago. Sneaky Terfs to arrange the laws of physics and the origin of the solar system to deny your Centrality in All Things.

Look closely enough and no two humans are “biologically identical.” Nobody is biologically identical to me, but that doesn’t mean I’ve redefined things to keep 7 billion plus people out of the club of “me.” I didn’t redefine my DNA to become exclusionary. It’s just the way things are.

Being an adult human female is not a club, or a clique or a fashion, or a team, or a game. It’s not a role in a play. It’s not a state of mind. It’s a fact of the world, a part of material reality. Stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue (or mutilating your body and pumping it full of hormones, or just putting on a dress) isn’t going to change that. To think you can is misguided and delusional. The rest of the world is under no obligation to aid and abet the pursuit of your impossible goal. That there are people who can’t or won’t accept that is a problem to the extent that they make it a problem for everyone else. Using an analogy I came across in a different context, you can make your world a more comfortable place to walk by covering it with leather, or you can wear shoes. When you throw people out of restaurants because they’re wearing t-shirts that might offend people who are wrong and misguided, you’re trying to cover the world in leather. Don’t do that. Grow up. Wear shoes.

Surely the best solution for people who actually suffer from disphoria or dismorphia is the one that does the least harm. I’m thinking that gender “reassignment” surgery should be a last resort, not a first response. Surgery and drugs sound like the equivalent of a fad diet pill for “instant” weight loss, compared to following a long-term, sensible diet with exercise.

The issues involved would be much simpler if they were not compounded with the desires of the autogynephilic crowd (which, I believe, are different from the needs of the disphoric and dismorphic). Then there are those predators who would use self-ID to increase access to their victims. So the actual needs of suffering people (“true trans”, if you will) get hijacked by the desires of the needy, narcissistic, and predatory, who seem to be supplying the volume and firepower in the public airing of trans issues. Combine this with ad-hoc redefinition of terms, the conflation (or outright replacement) of “sex” with “gender,” the bad faith use of intersex and DSD conditions to argue against the 99% of cases where sex is one or the other configuration of an easily observed (not “assigned”) binary state, and you’ve got a good start on the recipe for the mess we’re in.

Cool story but is there a shred of truth in it?

Londoners Against Transphobia

Unfortunately, we had to cancel the planned protest against Women’s Place UK and Fairplay for Women due to concerns about the safety of attendants. We heard rumour of a counter-protest by more….’radical’ elements of the anti-trans community. This would have put people attending at risk of physical and psychological harm. If you wish to organise your own protest, please keep in mind that Posie Parker and Dr Julia Long may organise a counter protest where the aim may be to incite violence. We apologise for the situation, this was not how this wanted to go. If anyone ever claims that TERFs are being intimidated and silenced, I urge you tell people about this specific case where the people who had to stay silent for their safety were trans people and their allies.

But is there so much as one example of gender critical feminist women causing or threatening physical harm to anyone? Ever? Because I don’t know of any. Some people were terribly shocked that two such women asked a trans woman some questions in a public place this one time, but I don’t think that counts. Other than that? I don’t know of one single example. No baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire, no fake-blood-streaked T shirts, no tweets full of “Kill all the TERFs transwomen, nothing.

It’s an interesting trick, inventing a threat out of whole cloth and then announcing “If anyone ever claims that TERFs are being intimidated and silenced, I urge you tell people about this specific case where the people who had to stay silent for their safety were trans people and their allies.” What specific case? What “had to”? There isn’t any.

When gender critical women are threatened or attacked there is documentation of it. There are photos, there are screen grabs, there are witnesses, there is video. It’s not just a matter of saying it on Facebook: there is copious evidence. This? This is just people saying “We heard a rumor of a plan” – that’s literally all.

DARVO much?

Katie Herzog at The Stranger says Women’s Soccer is a Very Dykey Sport:

There’s a couple of major differences between women’s soccer and men’s soccer. One: The U.S. women are good at it. Two, women’s soccer is a hell of a lot gayer.

Yesterday, “content producer” Alex Binley from ITV News published an article about why, exactly, so many dykes excel at this sport.

Binley says it’s because there’s so much homophobia in the male version.

It’s hard to argue with that. Outside of the U.S., Canada, and a few other countries, soccer is both the most popular and the butchest sport on the block. Games tend to hyper-masculine environments, which are not exactly the most welcoming of men who don’t fit contemporary gender stereotypes.

While women who don’t fit contemporary gender stereotypes are freed up to play great football.

But this Never Happens:

Toronto police say a 22-year-old man is facing charges after he allegedly recorded women in a changing room at a popular shopping mall in the city on Saturday.

Officers allege the man, who cannot be identified because of a publication ban, went into a clothing store at the Eaton Centre at about 4 p.m. and entered a unisex changing room.

They allege the man then placed a “homemade recording device” on the floor between change room stalls and recorded multiple women changing.

They say one of the women noticed the device and notified both security and police.

Investigators say they found numerous video clips of unknown women on the man’s device.

Must be a mistake. Men never spy on women. This must be cis privilege somehow. Give us a few years and we’ll figure out how.

The Epstein hearing is today.

Federal prosecutors in New York unsealed a criminal indictment Monday charging billionaire Jeffrey Epstein with having operated a sex trafficking ring in which he sexually abused dozens of underage girls, allegations that have circulated around the politically connected businessman for years.

…

Epstein, 66, was arrested Saturday night at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey aboard his private jet upon returning from Paris.

Later that evening, federal agents executing a search warrant of Epstein’s mansion in New York City recovered and seized a “vast trove” of lewd photographs of young-looking women or girls, prosecutors said in a bail memorandum.

Some of the photos were discovered in a locked safe along with compact discs with hand-written labels that read, “Young [Name] + [Name],” “Misc nudes 1,” and “Girl pics nude,” according to the bail memorandum.

He collected them, as one might collect stamps or wildflowers or minerals or old coins or other insensate objects. The trouble is, girls are not insensate objects. Clearly it’s very difficult for some men to grasp that simple fact, but it is nonetheless true.

The indictment also implicates some of Epstein’s employees. One person referred to as “Employee-1” called girls who had previously been lured into encounters with Epstein to arrange future visits to his New York residence, the indictment states.

When Epstein would travel by private jet from New York to Palm Beach, an employee or associate would “ensure that minor victims were available for encounters upon his arrival in Florida,” according to the indictment.

As an employee or associate might ensure that bottles of wine or baskets of fresh peaches or vats of hand-churned ice cream were available. The trouble is, girls are not food for men to devour. Clearly it’s very difficult for some men to grasp that simple fact, but it is nonetheless true.

Berman said the office would seek to keep Epstein detained pending trial, meaning prosecutors are expected to argue against giving him bail.

“We think he is a significant flight risk,” Berman said, citing Epstein’s “extreme” wealth, his two planes and the seriousness of the charges he faces.

Practically a guaranteed flight risk, I would think.

Fun fact: one of James Comey’s daughters – Maureen – is one of the prosecutors on the case.

It seems that Amherst issued a guide to woke language but had to withdraw it hastily because of the storm of derision. But it was preserved. It’s woke all right.

(Isn’t this where I came in? Writing a satirical version about 100 years ago.)

It’s in sections. There’s a section for -isms, starting with Ableism and Ageism. Then there’s…

CISSEXISM

The system of belief that cisgender individuals are the privileged class and are more natural, normal or acceptable than transgender, genderqueer, nonbinary and/or gender-nonconforming people. This belief manifests as the systematic denial of rights to trans and nonbinary people and their routine mistreatment.

Hmm yes very fair and impartial. Let’s tweak it a little:

REALITY

There are two sexes, and as many personalities as there are people. Sex does not determine personality, and it should not be allowed to limit or restrict it. Men can be gentle, women can be tough.

Simpler, easier to understand, and vastly less belligerent.

It’s interesting that “sexism” is shorter and comparatively perfunctory.

SEXISM

A system of oppression that privileges men and masculinity; subordinates women, girls and femmes (p. 12); and devalues practices associated with women, girls and femininity.

Why “men and masculinity” but “women, girls and femmes”? Why aren’t they parallel? Why not “men and masculinity” and “women and femininity”? Or “men, boys and butches” and “women, girls and femininity”? They don’t explain. Could it be because they unconsciously privilege men and masculinity themselves? Or even consciously, for all I know. It’s not as if the discrepancy is subtle.

In the gender section –

AFAB

An abbreviation for “assigned-female-at-birth,” a term frequently used, often by the transmasculine community, as a self-descriptor.“Assigned-at-birth” serves to imply that sex is without the agency of the individual.

Yes, well, it is without the agency of the individual, isn’t it. We don’t have the kind of magic “agency” that would let us overrule our own biology. We can’t will ourselves to be insects, or people of the 16th century, or 20 feet tall. What we are born is indeed without our agency, and a list of magical words can’t change that. Sorry, AFAB, you’re a weak reed.

BINDING

A method of reducing or flattening the appearance of one’s chest.

Wow, that’s evasive. It’s a method of crushing female breasts.

CISGENDER

An identity term for individuals whose gender identity matches their birth-assigned sex. Cisgender people receive benefits that trans and nonbinary people don’t have.

That’s right, we collect $10,000 a week just for being cis.

I’ll stop now. Lordy this crap is pathetic.

Time to equalize their pay, no?

Following up on the Alexander Acosta angle – Raul Reyes at CNN says he should resign. (The url indicates the piece dates from last March, but the headline says it’s updated, so it’s a mix of then and now.)

Until recently, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta was probably one of President Donald Trump’s least controversial Cabinet members. But now he is facing rising pressure over his handling of a sex offender case involving a well-connected billionaire.

On February 21, a federal judge ruled that Miami prosecutors, led by then-US Attorney Acosta, broke the law when they arranged a plea deal for billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2008 without conferring with his victims. Although Epstein was accused of trafficking children for sex, Acosta allowed him to negotiate an extremely lenient agreement that was kept secret from his victims — denying them the opportunity to affect the prosecutorial process. Now the victims might have a say: The judge gave the government 15 days to talk with the victims who sued and figure out what remedy should apply.

Not just a ludicrously lenient sentence but actually a sentence that broke the law.

At his 2017 confirmation hearing, Acosta was asked by Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia about the Epstein deal. “At the end of the day, based on the evidence, professionals within the prosecutor’s office decide that a plea that guarantees that someone goes to jail, that guarantees that someone register generally, and that guarantees other outcomes, is a good thing,” Acosta said.

In theory, that may be true; the reality was far different. Epstein served only 13 months in the private wing of the Palm Beach County jail. He was able to come and go for up to 12 hours at a time, six days a week. He was allowed to hire his own private security detail. During his subsequent year of probation under house arrest, he took numerous trips on his private jet.

*snort* That’s some house arrest!

Moreover, Acosta is on the verge of becoming a political liability for the administration. In addition to Judge Kenneth Marra finding that Acosta violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by keeping Epstein’s deal a secret from his victims, the Justice Department has opened an investigation into his handling of Epstein’s plea deal. The White House, too, is looking into Acosta’s role in the Epstein case. And on February 22, lawmakers sent a letter to the President calling on him to demand Acosta’s resignation over Epstein’s “despicable unjust plea deal.”

And five months later we see that nothing has come of it. Justice shmustice.

There is no joy in calling for the only Latino in Trump’s Cabinet to step down. Still, Acosta’s role in crafting a sweetheart deal for a sex offender means he does not deserve to be serving at the highest level of government.

True, Acosta’s handling of Epstein’s case predates his Department of Labor tenure. Yet as we’ve learned from sexual abuse scandals involving Hollywood actresses and Olympic gymnasts, the passage of time is no excuse for avoiding a reckoning. The fact that Epstein’s plea deal was made more than a decade ago does not mean that Acosta should not bear accountability for his actions. Epstein’s victims, who are now in their 20s and 30s, are still living with the consequences of that secret agreement. Acosta deserves to do so as well.

Don’t place any large bets on it.

Opposing accounts are still opposing.

The National Theatre has denied accusations it refused to serve members of the LGBT community in its Green Room bar due to “gender or sexuality” discrimination.

No, it was due to “not flattering trans delusions” discrimination.

A group of lesbian women, straight women and men visited the bar on Friday  – the night before London’s Pride celebrations – and claim they were refused service and asked to leave by staff.

The “and men” is kind of interesting. I guess men are welcome no matter what and don’t have to fill out the form stating whether they’re gay or straight? But women do? Because _____?

The National Theatre confirmed it was investigating the claims although say it had “multiple witnesses” who could corroborate the group were asked to leave following a “series of disturbances”.

It insisted the “clothing, gender or sexuality” of the women played no part in the “reluctant” decision, which was a result of “refusal to put placards out of sight that featured messages which upset other customers” and “abusive behaviour” toward staff.

However, speaking to i, Anne refuted claims the group had taken placards into Green Room or acted in an abusive manner.

While she and a few others were served drinks upon their arrival that evening, she said friends who came shortly after were refused service.

The group were then approached by a member of the management team who asked them to leave.

Anne explained: “The duty manager came and spoke to a few of us and said that there were trans staff coming on duty at the next shift change who could find our t-shirts upsetting and could be seen as hateful.”

Well anything could be seen as hateful, especially by people who spend their entire waking lives looking for pretexts to call things hateful. But if we decide that T shirts defining what a lesbian is are hateful, then aren’t we taking a huge leap back into plain old homophobia?

National Theatre security staff and police were called soon after the exchange, Anne said.

She added: “At no point were we abusive to staff, we were very polite and respectful.

“The NT have defamed and discriminated against us which goes against our protected characteristics as set out in the EA 2010.”

Yes but all that has been superseded by the new dispensation in which the potential conjectured possible future upset of trans staff who haven’t arrived for their shift yet is infinitely more important than the right of lesbians to sit on chairs and consume drinks. Better be safe than sorry.

In a statement, the National Theatre’s joint chief executive Lisa Burger said: “While investigations into the incident are ongoing, multiple witnesses corroborate that a group who attended the Green Room restaurant on Friday 5 July were ultimately asked to leave the premises as a result of a series of disturbances.

“These began with their refusal to put placards out of sight that featured messages which upset other customers and contravened our visiting policy, and culminated in abusive behaviour towards our staff.

“The clothing, gender or sexuality of the group was not a factor in the decision, which was reluctantly taken on the basis of the group’s behaviour and what was said. The National Theatre must be an inclusive place for everyone, and that means asking visitors to conduct themselves in a way that respects that principle.”

The National Theatre must be an inclusive place for everyone, and that means ordering lesbians to get out before the trans staff arrive for their shift.