Infuriating.

The fix is in.

The Supreme Court has granted a request by the Trump administration to temporarily block a lower court order requiring that a deported Salvadorian man be returned to the US.

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to pause a ruling that Kilmar Abrego Garcia should be brought back from El Salvador by midnight on Monday.

The government has said Mr Garcia was deported on 15 March due to an “administrative error”, although they also allege he is a member of the MS-13 gang, which his lawyer denies.

They admit it was an error but they insist on leaving him there anyway.

US Attorney General Pamela Bondi welcomed Justice Roberts’ stay, and said the administration will “continue to fight this case and protect the executive branch from judicial overreach”.

But it won’t even begin to protect people from executive branch overreach, false arrest, and deportation to a hellish prison.

Last week, US District Judge Paula Xinis, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, grilled the Trump administration’s attorney during a hearing over the deportation.

Justice department lawyer Erez Reuveni told her that Mr Garcia “should not have been removed”.

Over the weekend, Bondi announced Mr Reuveni – a 15-year veteran of the department – had been placed on paid administrative leave for failing to “zealously advocate on behalf of the United States”.

By “zealously advocate on behalf of the United States” she means “repeat the Trump Justice Department’s lies and threats.”

In a scathing opinion released on Sunday, Judge Xinis found that the US government’s error “shocks the conscience”. She said the government had acted “without any lawful authority” and was holding Mr Garcia in “direct contravention” of US law.

The Trump administration escalated the case to a Maryland appeals court, which denied their request to stay Judge Xinis’ order. The Supreme Court then issued its ruling just hours ahead of the deadline to return Mr Garcia by 23:59 EDT on Monday night (03:59 GMT Tuesday).

In other words the Supreme Court is in the can for Trump.

Whine whine whine. But we caaan’t, it’s too hard, we don’t have enough time, we don’t want to, we have to go potty, we want more ice cream.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court for emergency intervention in the case of a Maryland man the government — by its own admission — removed to El Salvador by mistake and now must return by 11:59 p.m. on Monday under a lower court’s order.

Yes we sent him to El Salvador by mistake but it WASN’T OUR FAULT and anyway we can’t get him back right this second because we’re giant babies and we don’t know how.

Abrego Garcia, despite having protected legal status, was sent to the notorious CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador following what the government said was an “administrative error.”

An error! A mistake! A little booboo! Everybody does them! Why are you picking on us???

The appeal to the Supreme Court came Monday morning, just before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a ruling by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis that Abrego Garcia must be returned by 11:59 p.m. on Monday

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s emergency motion to block the order to return Garcia to the U.S.

In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges agreed Xinis’ order requiring the government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of [Garcia] by the United States by no later than 11:59 pm on Monday, April 7, 2025,” should not be stayed.

“The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” the judges said. “The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”

That’s Trump for you. The more unconscionable the better.

We get to do it but you don’t. Don’t you dare do to us what we just did to you. WE GET TO DO IT AND YOU DO NOT.

Donald Trump has rebuked China for not heeding his warning not to retaliate over tariffs.

Honestly, where do they get the nerve?! We get to impose tariffs on them. Not the other way around!!

All the headlines say “transgender” players instead of “male” players. Every damn one.

Women’s Pool Final Played by Two Transgender Athletes

Two male transgender players. The male bit is important and should be in the headline and the lede. It’s the women’s final and two men played it.

Two transgender players faced-off in the final of a women’s championship pool match on Sunday—adding fuel to the fiery social debate surrounding trans athletes’ participation in women’s sports.

Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith, who were both assigned male at birth, fought for the title at the Ultimate Pool Women’s Pro Series Event 2 in Wigan in the UK this weekend.

Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith, who are both men, fought for the title.

Newsweek goes on to distort the argument.

Critics argue trans women cannot compete on an even playing field because they have an unfair advantage, particularly if the trans sportswomen have undergone male puberty. Some also have safety concerns, including fears that women could be at risk of serious injury in the boxing ring or in other contact sports.

However, others argue that trans athletes should enjoy the same opportunity to participate in sport as anyone else, and insist that trans’ rights are simply human rights.

See it? Pretty brazen. Trans athletes do enjoy the same opportunity to participate in sport as anyone else. Men don’t have an “opportunity” to compete in women’s sport, because women’s sport is for women. That’s the same for all men: that’s the same opportunity.

I have a great idea – let’s stop talking about “asexuality” and instead go back to what it used to be called: low libido.

Funny thing: if you ask Google if “asexuality” is a sexual orientation it says yes and provides a shower of links to politicalish sites, but if you ask about low libido you get medical sites.

Hmmmmm.

Should we just start making all medical issues a matter of idenninny instead of physical realities? Or are we already halfway down that road?

Here’s the Cleveland Clinic on low libido:

Low libido (low sex drive) is a decrease in sexual desire. It’s common and can be temporary or long-term. Libido naturally varies from person to person and can fluctuate throughout your life. But it’s important to see a healthcare provider if a dip in your libido is causing you distress.

Well that’s one way to look at it. Another way is to rage at society’s failure to center asexual people who share photos of themselves in catch me-fuck me gear.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Happy Asexuality Day to those who celebrate.

If you’re not announcing your “asexuality” to the world, how does anyone know to oppress you on the basis of this supposed asexuality? It’s completely invisible, or at least it is until you wave the flag and/or wear the Approved Colours, and having looked them up in the appropriate volume of the Official Licorice All-Sorts Field Guide to Gender Identity Vexillology and Hair Dye Selection (or nearest British Rail Inclusivity Poster), innocent bystanders now know that they probably should be oppressing you in order for them to do their bit, so that you can earn your LGBTQIA%$?@√π Community Martyrdom Merit Badge. It’s the polite thing to do, like a little old lady allowing a Boy Scout to help her across the road, and thereby performing a Good Deed.

Though one has to wonder: in what ways are asexual people “oppressed” by anyone? What rights are being withheld from them? Are they just tired of unwanted advances from undesirable potential partners? (Okay, all potential partners.) There are lots of people in the same boat, even though they don’t claim to be “asexual”, they just say “No”, or, if pressed, “Fuck off.” Why do asexual people believe they are deserving of attention that they are, simultaneously, so vociferously trying to avoid? If you stop making yourself conspicuous, nobody will notice, nobody will care. Or is that a problem for you after all? How do you get to be downtrodden if you’re completely ignored? How can you be targeted for abuse if you’re not on anybody’s radar? It is almost a koan-worthy conundrum. If nothing falls in the forest, does anybody give a shit?

Really, how are “Aces” being discriminated against? How would we address this alleged discrimination if we were ever inclined to do so? Trans “oppression” is alleviated by giving them everything they want, so they don’t kill themselves, or hound you out of your job. Rude, but simple. What do Aces want us to give them in order to get them to shut up ,and go away to make their lives complete and fulfilled? If it’s for us to leave them alone, then fine. Here’s a tip. Don’t parade around in lingerie, drop the flags, stop yelling about your condition/preference/whatever, and cancel this day that draws all this supposedly unwanted attention on you. Even simpler. Please feel free to start doing this immediately, and surrender this date in 2026 to some other group that actually needs it.

Notes on Trump and Denmark and Greenland:

In a Newsmax interview, Trump Jr. accused Denmark of mistreating Greenland. When he was asked about the idea of making Greenland an American territory, he bragged about his father’s prowess: “My father understands how to wield America’s economic might. He understands how to wield America’s military might. He knows how to do these things.”

As to his father’s talk of absorbing Canada and the Panama Canal, Trump Jr. gloated that Americans were “starting to again assert their dominance—not taking a back seat to, you know, little countries that don’t have, again, our economic might.”

All very upfront: we are bullies and we want your stuff and we’re going to take it.

Two days later, President Trump claimed—contrary to the available evidence—that “the people of Greenland would love to become a state of the United States of America.” And if Denmark “doesn’t like it,” he added ominously, “maybe things have to happen with respect to Denmark having to do with tariffs.”

You have to give me your stuff or I will hurt you and take your stuff.

[PM Mette] Frederiksen tried to appease Trump. In a phone call on January 15, she offered to work with him on American military concerns and on access to Greenland’s minerals. But she explained that the island wasn’t for sale, especially because its residents—who didn’t want to belong to Denmark or the United States, according to Greenland’s prime minister—should be allowed to choose their own future. Trump, unsatisfied, threatened her with tariffs.

Trump threatened an ally because she told him Greenlanders don’t want to be owned by the US or Denmark.

On January 25, when details of the phone call became public, reporters asked Trump about Frederiksen’s response. “She told you Greenland is not for sale,” said one reporter. “Will you take no for an answer on that?” Trump made it clear that he wouldn’t. “I think we’re going to have it,” he said of Greenland. As to Denmark, he warned: “It would be a very unfriendly act if they didn’t allow that to happen.”

Very unfriendly. Yes. If I demanded Trump’s apartment overlooking Central Park and he refused to give it to me that would be a very unfriendly act. Friendly=giving people whatever they demand.

Trump’s threats prompted European leaders to speak up in Denmark’s defense. “The inviolability of borders is a fundamental principle of international law,” said German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. “Russia has broken this principle with its invasion of Ukraine,” Scholz noted. And in an obvious reference to Trump, he added: “This principle must apply to everyone.”

At that point, Vice President JD Vance stepped in. In a February 2 interview on Fox News, he scoffed that Trump “doesn’t care about what the Europeans scream at us. He cares about putting the interest of America’s citizens first.” 

And what Vance means by “putting the interest of America’s citizens first” is demanding territory that belongs to other people and promising war if the answer is no. Does that work for everyone? Should Denmark be putting the interest of Denmark’s citizens first by demanding Maine and Massachusetts and Manhattan?

Replies pending.

Oh but they’re so sweet in their Corporate Memphis.

Ok, maybe there is such a thing, but why does it need a day? Why does it need an international day? What is the point of these “days” anyway? They’re not holidays, so what are they for? If you tell me it’s international paper bag day, what are you expecting me to do about it? Who is deciding which days are what, and why haven’t I been consulted? Is there any place where we can lodge a dissent, and demand a different day, or the inclusion of our chosen day instead of the announced one? Who is deciding all this? Where is the highly secretive junta that is issuing these rules, and what is their native language?

What exactly are we supposed to do to observe this day? Go outside and find the most asexual-looking person we can and brandish a fist in the air as a token of our solidarity? Carry a black and grey and white and purple flag around? Wear our sloppiest clothes? What?

I don’t know, but Thomas Willett is very agitated about the whole thing.

Oops, it appears they made a booboo.

English universities are scrambling to review policies related to transgender students and staff amid “anxiety” over whether they comply with free speech duties after the University of Sussex was hit with a record fine.

Several institutions appear to have removed documents from their websites in the wake of the Office for Students’ ruling last week, which found that Sussex failed to uphold its academic freedom obligations when its former professor, Kathleen Stock, was forced to resign because of protests over her gender-critical views.

The case – which saw Sussex fined £585,000 – centred on Sussex’s trans and non-binary equality policy that required academics to “positively represent trans people and trans lives” in relevant course materials.

That’s not so much a policy as a lunacy. “You must burble about trans lives and how glorious and enlightened they are.” No I don’t need to be doing that, thanks.

So there you go, two men competing for the top prize for women.

“Rachel” Saunders trying to convince onlookers that he’s a deep thinker:

My contention is that the history of gender critical discourse is rooted in a reaction against third wave feminist approaches to trans inclusive feminism…

So his contention is that gender critical discourse is rooted in criticism of gender bullshit. Well ya don’t say, Sherlock. How long did it take you to work that one out?

The history of feminist discourse is littered with ascendent ideas which wane as society moves on…

Hahahaha got enough mangled incompatible metaphors in there? How can history be littered with something? How high can ideas ascend? What are the signs of a waning idea? Where does society move on to?

Raymond’s book spurred anti-trans backlash during the 1980s which saw the closure of trans healthcare and the rolling back of trans normative rights movements. However, as the queer libationary movements emerged…

Oops. Too many libations while writing this epic consignment of geriatric shoe manufacturers?

At law countries across Europe and individual US states began to roll out tentative trans rights which blossomed into a normative framing of trans identities around the turn of the millennia. 

At law? Did he mean at last? And how does one “roll out” rights? And what are tentative trans rights? And how do tentative rights blossom? And how does anything at all blossom into a normative framing? And it’s turn of the millennium, not millennia.

From 2000 to 2015 trans people saw their lives shift from the shadows…

How do lives shift from the shadows?

This is what you get when stupid people try to do Fine Writing. Mr Saunders should skip the attempt and buckle down to fixing his thought process.

The return of measles:

The measles crisis in West Texas has claimed the life of another child, the second death in an outbreak that has burned through the region and infected dozens of residents in bordering states.

The 8-year-old girl died early Thursday morning of “measles pulmonary failure” at a hospital in Lubbock, Texas, according to records obtained by The New York Times. It is the second confirmed measles death in a decade in the United States.

We’re energetically going backwards. Hey team, let’s bring back lethal epidemics!

If the virus continues to spread at this pace, the country risks losing its measles elimination status, a hard-fought victory earned in 2000. Public health officials in West Texas have predicted the outbreak will continue for a year.

Robert F. Kennedy, the nation’s health secretary, has faced intense criticism for his handling of the outbreak. A prominent vaccine skeptic, he has offered muted support for vaccination and has emphasized untested treatments for measles, like cod liver oil.

According to doctors in Texas, Mr. Kennedy’s endorsement of alternative treatments has contributed to patients delaying critical care and ingesting toxic levels of vitamin A.

Yes but on the upside we have a complete amateur in charge of the federal health department. Exciting!

Hemant Mehta – remember him? – has written a snotty abusive post about Jerry Coyne and his failure to subscribe to trans ideology. It’s not an intellectually respectable attempt.

In an essay published in print yesterday, on the Trans Day of Visibility, biologist Jerry Coyne wrote in the Wall Street Journal (archived link) about his recent self-own against the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 

Weeds already. They do dash into them, the gender-worshippers. The sanctimonious “on the Trans Day of Visibility” is downright childish. Wtf is “the Trans Day of Visibility” and why should anyone care and above all why should anyone consider it a sanctified day on which it is unacceptable to say that trans ideology is bullshit? Hey, heads up, today is Listen to Gender Critical Women and Shut Up Day, and so is every other day. Sauce for the cis goose sauce for the cis gander.

And then the “self-own” – who says it was a self-own? Why, Mr Friendly, of course. It’s just so silly to say anything remotely skeptical about trans ideology, which is so obviously both true and beneficial.

The article predictably paints Coyne as the arbiter of good science, leaving out all the lies he told along the way.

There are journalists who have been sued for calling people liars without evidence. Just saying.

If you’re wondering what this is all about, you can read the whole backstory here. But in short, Coyne wrote an article in December that briefly appeared on FFRF’s website titled “Biology is not bigotry.” In it, Coyne wrongly insisted that sex is binary, lied about trans women, and pushed for discrimination against trans people.

Crude stuff. Wasn’t Mehta supposed to be a thoughtful intelligent guy? That seemed to be his reputation, as far as I knew, though I never paid much attention to him – I’m not a huge fan of people who attach hooray-words to their own names. I’ll decide for myself if you’re friendly or not, thank you, and judging by the above I would say you’re not even close.

Nowhere in the piece did he describe the countless ways the trans community is under attack, largely by people making similar misguided arguments.

Oh shut up. People declining to believe in trans ideology does not equal the trans communninny being under attack. If you say you’re a turnip and I say you’re not, you’re not under attack from me.

The article was so devoid of facts and empathy that FFRF soon took down the piece and posted their own statement explicitly backing LGBTQIA-plus rights and saying that publishing Coyne’s article “was an error of judgment [that] does not reflect our values or principles.”

Oh rilly? Well if it was that devoid of facts and empathy why did FFRF publish it? Why did they take it down only when some of its gender-addled younger staff pitched a fit? Why wasn’t its horrid nasty bad meanness obvious from the beginning?

Mehta quotes a bit of Coyne’s essay and then comments

Written like someone who’s still never had a single conversation with a trans person but pretends to be an expert on the subject anyway…

I’m less interested in explaining biology to him—he’s obviously not interested

Well no, there’s something else he’s even more obviously. A biologist.

I stopped reading at that point. It’s not good writing or thinking.

Originally a comment by maddog at Before you find yourself throwing up your hands in a tizzy.

A separate division denies them their truth to compete as their authentic selves and is antithetical to USA Fencing’s Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) vision.

I call BS. Why is creating separate divisions* for transgender athletes not a proper solution?

One advantage to creating a separate division for trans women athletes is that there would be no need for artificial T suppression, as there would be no need to pretend that the trans woman was an actual woman.

Creating a division for trans women would not “deny them their truth.” “Their truth” consists solely of an internal, unexaminable feeling (or claim of a feeling) that they feel more comfortable with the social stereotypes of femininity than those of masculinity. Athletes do not compete by means of their feelings. They can continue to have “their truth” — their internal feelings — as much as they want. However, they can only compete using their physical, sexed, bodies. Anything beyond an interior feeling of affinity with femininity, or a wish to have been born the other sex, is not a “truth;” it is a lie. The claim, based solely on wishful thinking, to be the sex you’re not is a lie. It is absolutely inauthentic.

“Authenticity” cannot be based on lies. If they compete in the division for the sex that they are not, that’s the exact opposite of “competing as their authentic selves.” It’s competing as their lying, cheating, fraudulent selves.

What’s “antithetical” to a ” diversity and inclusion” policy, is a policy that deliberately excludes women athletes from their own, sex-based, division, in favor of the same-old, same-old men, who have already had, and continue to have, the lion’s share of athletic opportunities throughout history. USA Fencing’s statements are pathetic.

*Of course, there would probably have to be TWO transgender divisions, rather than only one. The trans women would typically be far bigger and stronger, and have more musculature (including fast-twitch muscles), than trans men. Trans men who had double mastectomies may have damaged their natural pectoral muscles. Some of the potential results of mastectomy are muscle atrophy and loss of upper body strength and function. Having only one “transgender” division would once again favor the men (trans women) over the women (trans men), just as sex differences favor men over women in general. Quelle surprise.

What an unpleasant person.

Are mean rude bullies now tenured academics?

But sir…

From the Scottish Daily Express:

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton has claimed that banning trans women from using female bathrooms is a “dangerous road to go down” as he raised concerns about how this would be policed. He also insisted that he didn’t regret voting for Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial gender reforms, despite the issues they have raised now.

But sir. But sir. You say “dangerous” but what about the danger to women if men who claim to be trans are not banned from using female bathrooms? Why do you worry about the danger to men while ignoring the danger to women? You are aware that male violence to women is a good deal more common than female violence to men, right? You are aware that men are significantly bigger and stronger than women, aren’t you? Why are you fretting about potential danger to men while ignoring potential danger to women? I suppose it’s because you’re a man yourself, is that it? Could you possibly try to do better?

Aw, diddums.

Lia Thomas left feeling ‘devastated’ and ‘grief’

Is he now the poor wee mite?

Is anyone telling him to think about how girls have been left feeling because of him?

Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas has revealed she felt “devastated” and experienced “grief” after being banned from competing against biological women.

Thomas made these comments whilst serving as a keynote speaker at HiTOPS’ annual Trans Youth Forum at the weekend.

Makes sense. Trans ideology doesn’t work unless everyone is rigorously trained to be indifferent to the harms to women and girls.

This time I’m not the only one saying it, there’s a flood of people saying it. No, you lying shits: the nurses don’t object to trans nurse using their changing room; they object to MALE nurse using their changing room. Stop lying about it.

Ok let’s see if I can stomach this. Dreadful pompous smug fencing coach in August 2023 telling women and girls why they should take a back seat and like it.

So perhaps, before you dive in, it’s best to call out my beliefs up front before you waste your time reading this and find yourself throwing up your hands in a tizzy.

He means women there. It’s only women who “throw up their hands in a tizzy.” It’s so womany – stupid, weak, emotional, futile. Already we know where we are.

• Trasngender women are women and gender is not sex.
• Transgender fencers deserve the right to compete with the gender they identify with, and those of adult age should comply with the competition guidelines and regulations outlined by USA Fencing and the IOC—even if the science those IOC guidelines might be imperfect.
• A separate division denies them their truth to compete as their authentic selves and is antithetical to USA Fencing’s Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) vision.
• There is a possibility that transgender women have a physical advantage over their cisgender opponents after transitioning. There is also a possibility they do not. In Fencing, there is no data to support either viewpoint.
• Giving athletes a sense of belonging and a will to live is more powerful than medals and competitive glory.

Transgender women are men. If they were women they would just be called women.

Males who claim to be transgender have zero right to “compete with the gender they identify with” (presumably meaning as the gender they identify with), because males have physical advantages over females. It’s perfectly simple and obvious.

Talk of “their truth” and “their authentic selves” is just cloying silly rhetoric, and in no way a reason to trash women’s sports.

Of course men have an advantage over women before and after and during transitioning. There’s no “there is a possibility” about it.

If giving athletes a sense of belonging and a will to live is so important why isn’t it as important for women as it is for men???

What a horrible man.

There’s a lot more. Basta.