Welcome to Sunday, June 22, and the sabbath for goyische cats. It’s also National Chocolate Eclair Day, celebrating a great pastry (when made properly). Below are some chocolate-cream-filled ones from La Maison du Chocolat, a chain of French stores:
Some useful info from Wikipedia:
The word comes from the French éclair, meaning ‘flash of lightning‘, so named because it is eaten quickly (in a flash); however some believe that the name is due to the glistening of the frosting resembling lightning.
It’s also National Onion Rings Day (better than fries!) and World Rainforest Day. I can’t resist showing this photo of one rainforest denizen, Atelopus coynei, with the photo taken in the forest of the EcoMinga foundation, snapped by Juan Pablo Reyes and Jordy Salazar, and sent in by Lou Jost:
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the June 22 Wikipedia page.
I will be flying to New York early today for the Heterodox Academy Meetings, so there may be only Hili in the Hili dialogues and posting will be light. Bear with me; I do my best.
Da Nooz:
*As I wrote yesterday, the U.S. bombed nuclear facilities in Iran. Here is the NYT headline. Click to read, or find it archived here.
An excerpt:
American warplanes and submarines attacked three key nuclear sites in Iran early Sunday, bringing the U.S. military directly into Israel’s war and prompting fears that the strikes could lead to more dangerous escalations across the Middle East.
President Trump said the objective was the “destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity. He claimed success, saying in a televised address from the White House that the nuclear facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated.”
“Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,” Mr. Trump said. “If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.”
. . . It was not immediately clear how Iran would respond diplomatically or militarily. On Sunday, foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, who is in Turkey for diplomatic talks, said only that Iran “reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.”
. . . Here’s what you need to know:
Reaction in Congress: Top Republicans rallied behind Mr. Trump, calling the strikes a necessary check on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But senior Democrats and some G.O.P. lawmakers condemned the move as an unconstitutional one that could drag the United States into a broader war.
Israel’s role: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said early Sunday that the U.S. strikes had been carried out “in full coordination” between the American and Israeli militaries.
Strike details: A U.S. official said that six B-2 bombers dropped a dozen 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs on the Fordo nuclear site, which lies deep underground, and Navy submarines fired 30 TLAM cruise missiles at Natanz and another nuclear site in Isfahan. One B-2 also dropped two bunker busters on Natanz, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss military operations.
. . . Iran’s foreign ministry said in a statement on Sunday morning that the country would defend its territory and security “by all force and means” against the U.S. attack, which it called “a grave and unprecedented violation” of international law. “Silence in the face of such blatant aggression would plunge the world into an unprecedented level of danger and chaos,” the foreign ministry said.
. . . Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei would typically be expected to issue a statement or address the nation on live television during extraordinary circumstances. But Mr. Khamenei is in a bunker, all his electronic communication has been suspended to protect him against assassinations and communication with him is limited and difficult. Until he speaks, Iran’s definitive response to U.S. strikes on nuclear sites is not clear.
Here is the short announcement by Trump about the attack:
Seven B-2s and 14 bunker buster bombs is a serious attack. Only Ceiling Cat knows what will happen in the next few weeks. We may have entered a prolonged war, or perhaps Iran will surrender, which seems to me unlikely. I am not a pundit, and we shall see how this plays out
What is below was written yesterday afternoon:
*The war continues between Israel and Iran, with Israel targeting the Isfahan nuclear facility, Some countries, especially in Europe, are deeply scared that a wider war will erupt, especially if the U.S. joins Israel. The country’s head, Ayatollah Khamenei, 86, has also picked a slate of three potential replacements in case he’s killed. And we’re now into the two weeks that Trump has given Iran to satisfy his demands (which are unclear) before the U.S. bombs the country. Some excerpts:
From the NYT:
Adding to many people’s fears is the possibility that President Trump will grant Israel’s request that the United States intervene by dropping 30,000-pound bombs on an Iranian nuclear enrichment facility buried deep underground.
Such a move, experts say, could push Iran to retaliate against American military bases or allies across the Middle East, or to activate proxy forces, like the Houthis in Yemen, to snarl trade routes or damage oil infrastructure, harming the global economy.
. . . “We’re opening a Pandora’s box,” said Narges Bajoghli, an associate professor of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University. “Iran is not going to raise the white flag of surrender.”
From the WaPo:
In recent days, a relentless battle for Trump’s ear has swirled around the president. As he often does, Trump has picked up the phone for — and received advice from — prominent voices pushing opposing views, according to people with knowledge of his conversations who, like others in this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the president’s process.
The advice — some solicited, others not — from prominent donors, right-wing media figures and elected officials played on Trump’s own conflicting impulses on Iran. On the one side, Trump resolutely has stuck to his long-held belief that Iran must be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon. On the other, he has tried to avoid war — an approach that is a major element of his political movement.
On Thursday, Trump responded as he often has when faced with difficult options: He bought himself time, declaring that he would wait up to two weeks to make a decision.
So far, those cautioning the president to avoid authorizing a strike — and holding out for diplomatic negotiations — appear to be breaking through.
From another NYT article:
Wary of assassination, Iran’s supreme leader mostly speaks with his commanders through a trusted aide now, suspending electronic communications to make it harder to find him, three Iranian officials familiar with his emergency war plans say.
Ensconced in a bunker, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has picked an array of replacements down his chain of miliary command in case more of his valued lieutenants are killed.
And in a remarkable move, the officials add, Ayatollah Khamenei has even named three senior clerics as candidates to succeed him should he be killed, as well — perhaps the most telling illustration of the precarious moment he and his three-decade rule are facing.
I still don’t agree that Trump should decide to keep the U.S. out of the fray. If he does, at least he could give or sell some B2 bombers and seven or eight bunker-buster bombs to Israel so they can destroy the underground facilities. Think about this: what will “negotiations” accomplish? For one thing, they’d leave the theocracy in power, and thus the vibrant people of Iran will remain oppressed by medieval laws and morals. For another thing, unless there is the most thorough inspection scheme ever devised to sniff out uranium and missiles, Iran will continue to cheat until it gets the bomb, and I have no doubt that it would use it against Israel. Trump may want a reputation as a peacekeeper, but some day we may be saying, “If only the U.S. had toppled the regime.” (Of course, that cannot be done without the help of the Iranian people.)
*A judge ordered that Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia grad student detained for purported pro-Palestinian protests, must be released, and now he’s free. Throughout the U.S., judges are deciding that people cannot be detained for simply uttering free speech, but nevertheless Trump’s detentions have had a chilling effect.
. . . . with Mahmoud Khalil’s release on bail from federal detention on Friday, the early phase of the Trump administration’s high-profile crackdown on international students who have spoken out in favor of Palestinian rights appears to have ended for now.
As a detention campaign — an attempt to confine the students while their deportation cases play out — Mr. Trump’s efforts appear to have been unsuccessful. In addition to Mr. Khalil, many of the other administration’s most prominent targets have been freed, while immigration agents have been barred from even trying to detain others.
Judges in those cases have sent an unequivocal message: The administration cannot detain people solely because of their speech.
“The unanimity of federal court decisions on this issue should send a clear message to the executive branch that it cannot snatch people off the streets for peacefully protesting and put them in prison indefinitely,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. “The federal courts have unequivocally protected the First Amendment rights of the noncitizen protesters in these cases, literally across the country.”
Mr. Trump’s second term has been rife with similar efforts to suppress disfavored speech, as the administration bars news outlets from the Oval Office and cancels federal grants on the basis of words that its officials dislike. And while many of those efforts have been legally unsuccessful, it is difficult to measure their broader political effect.
In the case of the high-profile student protesters, if one of the president’s goals was to stifle the pro-Palestinian movement on college campuses, his administration has succeeded in some ways. The abrupt detention of foreign students may have had a profoundly chilling effect on international students, who could see Mr. Khalil’s monthslong detention as a warning.
“I am now regularly advising noncitizens to consider whether they want to engage in political speech,” Ms. Mukherjee said. “Of course, they should have a right to do so under the First Amendment, but there are potentially life-altering, devastating consequences for doing so.”
I fully agree with Mukherjee: these people are being deprived of their rights for speaking out. You may argue that noncitizens don’t have free speech, but the Constitution just says “the people”. And even if noncitizens don’t have free speech, they should, and the courts should, as they have done, act accordingly. There should be no detention without formal charges, and only when the detained person poses a flight risk. Every detained person should have their cases adjudicated by the courts, even if the case is open and shut, and detaining Khalil was wrong.
*Reader Divy Figueroa sent me this article from the Independent and told me that Stephen Fry had broken her heart. Click to read:
An excerpt (remember that Fry is gay):
Stephen Fry has claimed that JK Rowling’s “cruel” and “mocking” views on transgender people is a result of being “radicalised”.
The QI star, who narrated the Harry Potter audiobooks, is the latest to speak out against Rowling’s comments on gender ideology, which has seen her repeatedly come under fire.
Many, including stars of the Harry Potter adaptations, have accused her of transphobia – and now Fry, 66, has shared his own damning view on the author.\
Fry, who is an advocate for LGBT+ rights, suggested that the “vitriol” her critics send is “unhelpful” as it “only hardens her”.
“She has been radicalised, I fear – perhaps by TERFs [Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist] but also by the vitriol that is thrown at her,” he said to The Show People podcast, adding: “I’m afraid she seems to be a lost cause for us.”
Fry continued: “She started to make these peculiar statements and had very strong, difficult views. She seemed to kick a hornet’s nest of transphobia that has been entirely destructive.”
The presenter and actor was previously criticised by the LGBT+ community in 2022 when he said he would not “abandon” Rowling, who was once his friend, but he is speaking out now as he “disagrees profoundly with her on this subject”.
, , ,“She says things that are inflammatory, contemptuous and mocking,” he said. “They add to a terribly distressing time for trans people.”
Fry went on: “When it comes to the transphobia issue, it is right to remind people that trans people are here and that they are hurting. They are being abominably treated. There’s a great deal of bullying, violence, suicide and genuine agony in the trans community.”
Rowling has become ostracised from former Harry Potter child stars Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint due to the controversy – and the author has said she would not forgive the actors for criticising her opinions, telling them to “save their apologies”. She has denied being transphobic.
Divy added, “I never imagined that Stephen Fry would succumb to the trans zealotry, but that he would see straight through it and call it out for what it is. Standing up for women’s rights and stating basic scientific facts is not transphobic!
I agree completely. Rowling is not transphobic; what Fry calls “transphobia” is simply her insistence that there should be some spaces reserved for biological women, combined with her sharp and often funny retorts to those people who see Rowling’s stand as “transphobic”. As far as I can see, she does not denigrate or wish to erase trans people.
*Chase Strangio is the ACLU’s head lawyer for LGBTQ+ issues, and is also a trans-identified woman. I have found his views reprehensible, and a step backward for the ACLU, for he is not neutral but a somewhat unhinged activist for trans rights, some of which (like sports participation) are dubious. But I most dislike him for his call for banning of Abigail Shrier’s first book, Irreversible Damage, in which Shrier’s thesis turned out to be right.
Strangio argued before the Supreme Court against Tennessee’s ban on affirmative care for minors, but lost, 6-3. In his latest column, “Strangio things,” Andrew Sullivan sees this loss as a watershed moment, saying, “The campaign to trans children just lost an election, SCOTUS, and the NYT.” I highly recommend that you read the NYT article linked below (archived here). Note also the WSJ’s article, “The Trump-Era rollback of transgender rights is gaining steam,” which includes the slippery word “rights.”
An excerpt from Sullivan:
I think this could be the beginning of the end.
I’m referring to the attempt to capture the remnants of the gay and lesbian rights movement in order to promote the abolition of the sex binary in law, society, and culture. The Supreme Court just brutalized it with facts in the Skrmetti case. And Nick Confessore’s deeply-reported piece in the NYT Magazine is the knockout punch. The NYT shift is the most surprising — no one thought the queers would win Skrmetti after the oral arguments — and it’s worth a review.
An impressive piece of narrative writing, the Confessore piece wrestles many of the complexities and plot twists to the ground, but it’s particularly helpful in informing liberal readers in a source they may trust that this is no longer the gay and lesbian rights movement they thought they knew.
It is, instead, a Gender Revolution, led by a figure Confessore paints vividly: Chase Strangio, the transman who has headed up the ACLU campaign to abolish the sex binary, and who argued and just lost Skrmetti 6-3. In his own words, he is
“a constitutional lawyer who fundamentally doesn’t believe in the Constitution,” an L.G.B.T.Q. activist who felt his movement was overly devoted to gay white men with “social power and capital and political power”
(Never mind that rich gay white men always had the resources to protect their relationships in law — that’s what fancy lawyers are for. It was working-class lesbian and gay couples who benefited the most from marriage rights and employment protection.)
Strangio’s disdain for gay white men is of a woke piece with his view that the Supreme Court is “a vile institution”; that “the law is not a dignified system”; and that gay marriage (which he did some begrudging legal work for) was a mistake. As the Respect For Marriage Act passed in 2022, entrenching gay marriage rights in congressional law, Strangio wrote:
I feel an inexplicable amount of rage witnessing the Senate likely … vote to codify marriage rights for same-sex couples … I find it disappointing how much time and resources went into fighting for inclusion in the deeply flawed and fundamentally violent institution of civil marriage.
I believe in many ways, the mainstream LGBTQ legal movement caused significant harm in further entrenching the institution of marriage as an organizing structure of civil society … and the political capital that went into passing this means capital lost somewhere else — for voting, abortion, trans people, student loans.
How far the ACLU has sunk! And of course gender-nonconforming people and gays should be afforded the rights and dignity of everyone else. But what may be ending is the kind of unhinged gender activism that demands more rights for gender-nonconforming people than for other people, including gay people. That’s what gets Sullivan’s hackles up:
Strangio and his fellow nutters have also pushed the gay and lesbian rights movement onto thin political ice — and it’s now cracking beneath our feet. The queer radicals have lost an election, debates in 27 state legislatures, the Biden DOJ, public opinion, the Supreme Court, and now — with this definitive piece and a solid podcast series, The Protocol — the New York Times. And next month, the most famous clinic in the US transing kids, run by Johanna Olson-Kennedy, will shutter. She was a key promoter of the suicide lie. The lawsuits are going to be brutal.
Does that mean we can finally actually have a debate about this in the gay and lesbian world? Or that the Democrats will begin to realize just how bamboozled they have been — and right the ship? Ezra Klein’s new interview with Sarah McBride is the first admission from a leading trans figure that they have fucked up badly, and need to regroup. It’s a welcome change of tone and direction.
Maybe there’s a chance for what’s left of the former gay groups to recover their liberal principles, support free speech, engage opponents, respect religious dissent, use plain English, and trust rigorous, evidence-based science again. If we can do that, and help kids in gender distress without irreversibly and prematurely medicalizing them, we can begin to regain the broader public trust we have recently lost. Know hope.
Here’s a graph from the Pew poll linked to the “public opinion” phrase above, showing how Americans’ view of policies and laws involving trans people have changed in just three years (click to enlarge):
*Famous bassist Carol Kaye, 90, a studio musician who contributed to some of rock’s greatest hits, has declined her election to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio, though her reasons seem bizarreand she will be inducted anyway, despite her objections. First, a bit from her Wikipedia bio:
Kaye has achieved critical acclaim as one of the best session bassists of all time. Michael Molenda, writing in Bass Player magazine, said that Kaye could listen to other musicians and instantly work out a memorable bass line that would fit with the song, such as her additions to Sonny & Cher’s “The Beat Goes On”. Paul McCartney has said that his bass playing on the Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was inspired by her work on Pet Sounds.[1] Alison Richter, writing in Bass Guitar magazine, has called Kaye the “First Lady” of bass playing, adding “her style and influence are in your musical DNA.”
Kaye’s solo bass line in Spector’s production of “River Deep, Mountain High”, was a key part to the song’s “Wall of Sound” production. The recording is now in the Grammy Hall of Fame. Quincy Jones said in his 2001 autobiography Q that “… women like… Fender bass player Carol Kaye… could do anything and leave men in the dust.” Brian Wilson has said that Kaye’s playing on the “Good Vibrations” sessions was a key part of the arrangement he wanted. “Carol played bass with a pick that clicked real good. It worked out really well. It gave it a hard sound.”[30] Dr. John has said that Kaye “is a sweetheart as well as a kick-ass bass player”.
About her refusal of the honor:
Carol Kaye, a prolific and revered bassist who played on thousands of songs in the 1960s including hits by the Beach Boys, Simon & Garfunkel and Barbra Streisand, told The Associated Press on Friday that she wants no part of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.
“I’ve declined the rrhof. Permanently,” the 90-year-old Kaye said in an email to the AP. She said she has sent a letter to the Hall saying the same thing.
Her remarks come two days after a Facebook post — since deleted — in which she said “NO I won’t be there. I am declining the RRHOF awards show.”
Kaye was set to be inducted in November in a class that also includes Joe Cocker, Chubby Checker and Cyndi Lauper.
She said in her deleted post that she was “turning it down because it wasn’t something that reflects the work that Studio Musicians do and did in the golden era of the 1960s Recording Hits.”
Kaye’s credits include the bass lines on Simon & Garfunkel’s “Homeward Bound,” the Beach Boys’ “Good Vibrations” and the Monkees’ “I’m a Believer.”
Along with drummer Hal Blaine and guitarist Tommy Tedesco, she was part of a core of heavily used studio musicians that Blaine later dubbed “The Wrecking Crew.”
Kaye hated the name, and suggested in her Facebook post that her association with it was part of the reason for declining induction.
“I was never a ‘wrecker’ at all,” she wrote, “that’s a terrible insulting name.”
Kaye’s inductee page on the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame website makes no mention of the moniker.
. . .Many artists have been inducted in their absence or after their death, and in 2006 the Sex Pistols became Hall of Famers despite rejecting their induction.
In 2022, Dolly Parton initially declined her induction, saying someone more associated with rock ‘n’ roll should get the honor. But she was convinced to change her mind and embrace the honor.
Since she has an “inductee page,” she’s clearly going to be inducted, and boy, does she deserve it. See the videos below if you don’t believe me. As for her view of the monicker “The Wrecking Crew” (which also included Leon Russell and Glenn Campbell), it seems trivial, for the “Crew” was much admired and sought after. Here’s the putative source of the name:
The name was in common use by April 1981 when Hal Blaine used it in an interview with Modern Drummer. The name became more widely known when Blaine used it in his 1990 memoir, attributing it to older musicians who felt that the group’s embrace of rock and roll was going to “wreck” the music industry.
Here’s a video summarizing Kaye’s career:
And another video showing and explaining Kaye’s bass lines (there were two: a high and a low one) on “Good Vibrations”:
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili explains how cats argue:
Hili: In a serious discussion, only three types of arguments count.
A: What types?Hili: Meowing, hissing and clawing.
Hili: W poważnej dyskusji liczą się tylko trzy rodzaje argumentów.
Ja: Jakie?
Hili: Miauczenie, syczenie i drapanie.
*******************
From The Language Nerds. Always use the Oxford comma (comma before the last item in a series):
From Jack Corbo:
From Jesus of the Day:
From Masih, a grim anniversary. Neda Agha-Soltan, who was shot in 2009, is identified by Wikipedia this way:
. . . an Iranian student of philosophy, who was participating in the 2009 presidential election protests with her music teacher, and was walking back to her car when she was fatally shot in the upper chest.
Eyewitnesses are reported by Western sources as saying Agha-Soltan was shot by a militiaman belonging to Basij paramilitary organization Her death was captured on video by bystanders and broadcast over the Internet, and the video became a rallying point for the opposition. Agha-Soltan’s death sparked renewed protests against the disputed election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I can’t embed the post, which has a video on it (content warning: death), but if you click on the screenshot below you can see the whole thing. Her eyes are open at the beginning.
Luana sent me this tweet asking if it were true. Sadly, it is. But at the U of C we do not punish people for free speech, as odious as it may be. But I can emit counter speech, and I’ll say that this man seems like a horrible, hateful person who supports terrorism and real genocide. Click to go to the original tweet:
Simon sent two Trump phone jokes:
— Meacham ✌🏼 (@meachamdr.bsky.social) 2025-06-20T14:56:40.456Z
From Malcolm; a d*g trying to be a cat:
You see, I’m a cat too.. 😂 pic.twitter.com/sLnP0RgjrK
— Buitengebieden (@buitengebieden) May 8, 2025
One I reposted from the Auschwitz Memorial:
This French Jewish girl was gassed to death as soon as she arrived at Auschwitz. She was thirteen.
— Jerry Coyne (@evolutionistrue.bsky.social) 2025-06-22T07:20:52.602Z
Two posts from Dr. Cobb. First, a rare blood type is found (I didn’t know there were 48 blood groups; she’s the carrier of a rare variant in one of those groups:
A French woman from the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe has been identified as the only known carrier of a new blood type, dubbed "Gwada negative," France's blood supply agency has announced. u.afp.com/Sx36
Matthew says, “Here’s a silly tweet,” though I don’t know exactly what prog-rock is:
We went to the rehung National Gallery. This painting, from around 1460, could easily have been painted for the cover of a 70s British prog-rock album.
— Matthew Cobb (@matthewcobb.bsky.social) 2025-06-20T16:15:27.849Z
Strangio’s rage at gay men is pretty explicable, in the same way that trans-identified men’s rage at lesbians is not any kind of mysterious.
Ya think?!
I am going to offer that the policy battles over “trans” will not cease while all the polite people keep calling women like Chase “he” and “him.” I understand the many reasons why they might continue to do so; with the best of these, I simply disagree.
Call Chase whatever stage name she likes; her parents can take it up with her if they are unhappy. But “him” says “man,” and man says “male.” There are no other types of men. Just as “she” for an adult says “woman,” and woman says “female.” At least those who put the penis-possessing, criminally-convicted “women” in women’s facilities are being consistent.
Adopt their pronoun advocacy. Accept that “trans” has biological meaning and that “gender” is anything other than recycled stereotypes. Embrace “identity” and “lived experience” and “my truth.” (After all, Chase is a “he” because “he” says so.) Teach it all in the schools to your children and grandchildren. Oh, joy! Their involuntary Sunday school runs all week long!
I will thank the political conservatives (their Sunday schools are subject to parental consent) and a large block of independents. Without them, those of us who don’t voluntarily cede to a world that rejects objectivity and truly establishes the individual man (or woman) as the measure of all things, would already have been forced by rule of law and the coercive power of the state to bow before this latest group of postmodernish idols.
Curious how it is always someone else’s potential theocracy that frightens more than that of one’s own tribe—even when the latter is being established before your eyes.
I was going to write something similar, based on “a trans-identified woman. I have found his views”. I think that giving in to the preferred pronouns is a slipperly slope down which we slid into the mess in which we are now.
Kaye plays on Glenn Campbell’s recording Wichita Lineman (written by Jimmy Webb) – Rick Beato has a whole video on that one tune.
It’s a memorable intro – bummm bap-ba-bap bummmm – right out in front.
King Crimson has an album cover with that sort of art… Lizard, 1970…. Yes (the band Yes, with Rick Wakeman) not really, but those are examples of 70s “prog-rock”… it’s funny because Wakeman has a solo album The Six Wives of Henry VIII…and Henry VIII lived 28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547…
… incredible painting!
🎶🎵
I mostly thought prog-rock was rather self-important, mediocre and forgettable – not that I’m in any way qualified to pass such a judgement, especially as Matthew Cobb’s tweet immediately reminded me of Renaissance and their enjoyable album, Turn of the Cards and its cover art. The Alan Parsons’ Project, possibly prog-rock, has produced some memorable songs, eg, Games People Play – not to be confused with Joe South’s song of the same name.
… and that Oxford comma example is PERFECT.
I do not agree.
If the convention is not to use the Oxford comma, it just as unambiguous as if the convention is to use the Oxford comma.
Those of us who don’t use the Oxford comma are not at all confused about the possibility of somebody being both mother and wife to the same other person. The main reason is that, by convention, for people who don’t use the Oxford comma this is a single list in which “mother” and “wife of Steph Curry” are clearly two separate items separated by an “and”.
Of course you can get some amusement by applying the wrong convention, but it should be pretty obvious which convention was being used in this case.
I can see that – in my reading, it’s the order of “mother” first that connects first with Ayesha – telling us she is a mother of someone, “wife” next right before Steph Curry so she is his wife. Without a comma, it is a unified “mother and wife”.
I think there should be a better way to write that whole sentence though.
But by “PERFECT” I meant memorable/unforgettable as an example which itself might only be illustrative.
I understand that the U of C professor has free speech as an academic. What i don’t understand is why someone with those views was considered a desirable candidate for the position. He was interviewed and selected- no doubt with stiff competition- for a tenure-track position at an elite university. Obviously I don’t think Islamic studies should be Jewish genocide studies. There is no requirement that every possible idea must be given a tenured teaching platform in a university. This is quite different than inviting a speaker with unpopular opinions.
Prof. Doostdar has free speech not as an academic but because he is on American soil and can’t be punished by the American state for speech (except for the usual well-known restrictions.). (As a U.S. citizen he can’t be deported as an undesirable.) His role as an academic gives him no further protection above anyone else. The right to academic freedom he enjoys as an employee of the University of Chicago is covered under his employment contract and the University’s collective agreement with its faculty union, much like his salary and his dental plan. It’s not any business of the state’s, the forum where free speech issues are contested.
I don’t mean to trivialize this. Academic freedom is obviously very important, especially to an institution like UChicago. But it is a private deal between the professors’ union and their employers. If the University wanted to get rid of him, it could, just by walking him off the premises and trying to make a deal in the ensuing union grievance.
A more restrictive view of academic freedom is that professors can pursue any line of enquiry in a scholarly manner to see where it goes. Period. Mere partisan political speech could be a breach of an employment contract, just as teaching a class that was nothing but a cover for violent radical Islamist jihadism preached to the converted could be. Every employer has the right to get rid of an employee it no longer wants to work with. It might just cost more than the employer wants to pay. And since, as you point out, UChicago hired this guy in a competitive hiring process, it may be perfectly happy with his performance and may not have any desire to boot him.
I think the best way to counter Prof. Doostdar’s speech outside a tuition-funded class is with better speech. If UChicago wants to accept the reputational consequences that’s on it.
Of course I’m aware of the difference between free speech in our Constitution and the academic free speech refered to regarding the professor’s views. I assumed his views were evident in his published works when he was hired.
I suspect his views were not espoused during the hiring process and, at any rate, the only criteria we use in hiring is academic merit. I don’t think anybody knows what he teaches in that class, as I have never heard of a Jewish student taking it, and those who are ideologically aligned with the professor wouldn’t complain. The only grounds for investigation would be if the professor was creating a climate in his class that was considered bigoted by Jewish students
A great response in The Daily Telegraph to Stephen Fry’s idiotic comments about JK Rowling being “radicalised”: https://archive.is/hDKjM
Cracking! Thanks for that link, Jez. One hopes that Sir Stephen will be suitably embarrassed on reading that, and that he pays heed to Clement Attlee’s remark about a period of silence (on his part) now being welcome.
They dismiss her (and all) criticism as transphobic and then find that she is “cruel and mocking.”
Always about the attitude. Never about the substance.
She iß cruél àñd mocking because she tells the truth, and the truth hurts.
Criticisms of JKR remind me of criticisms of Richard Dawkins. Both JKR and RD speak their minds freely, and neither suffer fools. As you say, many people object to their demeanor/attitude, and fail to address the substance.
Wow, that was good! I do happen to think that Rowling has been guilty of using… heavy sarcasm. And also she is fully guilty of bringing up actual cases where men have pushed into women’s spaces — cases that happen to be … true.
That last paragraph. Very good, that last short paragraph.
One wonders whether Fry has read a single word that JKR has written on the subject. She has been consistently sympathetic towards trans people who have taken personal responsibility for their lives, and for the consequences of their decisions. She has no time for the activists who want to erase natal women and gays from society, or who think it’s a good idea to brainwash, drug and mutilate children.
Very good piece, thanks. I would love to see what Fry would answer.
Agreed. Please use the Oxford comma. And why not? Not including the comma saves only one character. Now that all text is online—ASCII 44—it doesn’t matter.
The news? Too much for me to comment on.
I think we still need to clean our language of the idioms used by transgender advocates. Aside from being unclear, transwoman (is that a women who is trans or a man?) and transman, can be too easily read as accepting the reality that there are trans people as opposed to these being people who merely assert that they are trans. Likewise, as in the NYT article, we need to uncouple LGB and T from one another. Strangio clearly doesn’t see himself as part of an LGBT community, and the use of the term implies that this is an issue for a larger group of people than just trans affecting people. We are handicapped by the fact that this language was developed by political advocates. It is hard to reject their language without seeming to be cruel or mocking, but the use of their language validates their positions to some degree.
I don’t think we will foreseeably get the language settled, since for the time being there is too much dissent and honestly the terms are damn confusing.
But maybe there is consensus on one small area, at least where the far left might actually agree with the mainstream left, and that is that a biological male who identifies as female can be called a trans woman. And symmetrically the same for a biological female who identifies as a male – they can be called a trans man, and the different parts of the left probably will not disagree with that.
Meanwhile, there is constant nipping at ankles over whether a trans woman is a woman, or a trans man is a man.
I do think “transwoman” and “transman” are going out of fashion. There could be two opposing reasons, favoured by opposite sides of the political spectrum.
1). People know there is no such thing as a transwoman and they know that of course they are all men. A man can’t become a transwoman any more than he can become a transpanther. Or a transIndian. (aka a Pretendian: a person of entirely European descent who identifies as aboriginal, in order to obtain the benefits flowing therefrom.). Helen Joyce proposes “fake-woman”, which is a helpful cognitive manoeuvre but is unlikely to catch on the way Pretendian has. I think the reason is that the Leftists who run everything and control public opinion feel sorry for the Indians whose identity has been interloped on for fun and profit, and they condemn the faker. In trans, they feel sorry for the faker and don’t give a crap for the women who suffer actual harm from the deception. But people aren’t fooled by “transwoman”. It had value only as deception.
2). “Transwoman” tips the writer’s hand too soon that we are talking about a man here. In a story about Gladys Froomis who wins the women’s freestyle swim by two pool lengths, the focus is on the haters who want to disqualify her because she is “transgender”, making it sound as if they resent her because she’s black, or lesbian. They might just say, “Even though Gladys identifies as a woman, some competitors think she has an unfair advantage even though [insert bogus statistics about no performance differences].” By thus buying the lede, the writer hides the fact that Gladys is male, and makes the whole story sound like a civil rights issue.
In this sense, “transwoman” may be evolving into a slur. Just as “Negro” was once preferred over “colored people”, it is mostly a no-no today. “Transwoman” was useful only when there was still hope to compel us to believe that transwomen are women. When that didn’t stick (except in Canada, where they are), it was time to move on. Now they want to be called, simply, “women.” Anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman. That is why we will have to require all female athletes to pay for an SRY gene assay in order to keep men out of the game, instead of just ruling that “transwomen” can’t play. Progress!
As usual I agree with you Leslie. BUT… it isn’t just a matter of a pendulum swinging back and forth.
It is for US… established, over 30 people. Gen Xers (me) or boomers (you).
But for an entire generation raised on this kind of woke nonsense…. it is the water they drink and swim in. Any swing of the pendulum is perceived not as a regression to the mean but rather a whole new “fascist” thing.
That’d be anybody under 30 if you consider this bs has been front and center, all around, since before 2000. That whole cohort sees things differently to us.
keep well Leslie my friend,
D.A.
NYC
How about WooMen, WooMan… they get both, or perhaps, Wōmen, Wōman. Forget trans as that seems to indicate they have, and they of course, haven’t.
Stephen Fry might object but I don’t care anymore, he has pathetic-ised himself.
I think quotation marks do important work. Both the phrase trans woman and the word transwoman can be misunderstood (male? female? wtf?). But quotation marks around the phrase “trans woman” and the word “transwoman” signal to the reader not to take the phrase or word too seriously. A sort of arched eyebrow in ASCII.
Trans-identifying man and trans-identifying woman are much clearer. IIRC, about 30% of people in the UK don’t correctly understand what is meant by “transwoman” and “transman”.
I agree many people don’t know what transwoman means. We may have lost the battle over word usage. Even trans-identifying woman is ambiguous: is the person a male identifying as a woman, or a woman identifying as male? That’s why I think snarky punctuation might be more helpful. But I concede it’s an imperfect solution.
So Ezra Klein shifts AGAIN.
First he was the wokest person alive: he was the Paul McCartney of woke.
Then… .a year or so ago: “Woke has gone too far.”
Three years ago trans was the hill he’d die on. Now…..? Not so much.
What a manipulative, not as bright as he thinks he is intellectual conman. We have a lot of conmen here in this town – consider the current president.
Apart from the two retarded middle aged Michelles, that idiot “Mx” Gessen and stupid Lydia fanatic far left Polgreen, Klein’s slippery mendatiousness is why I stopped subscribing to the NYTimes. Don’t start me on the disappointment of Tom Friedman.
Like some other institutions (BBC, Time Magazine, Pan Am are some I trot out as examples) the Times used to be pretty damn good. Now it is just damned.
D.A.
NYC
Nicholas Confessore and Andrew Sullivan led to me to read these 2 essays of 2016 of Chase Strangio. Strangio was already working at ACLU so ACLU knew Strangio’s view was far out of step of most people. Strangio’s essays not only seem quite extreme to me but simply a bunch of assertions, no attempt to make an argument, no attempt to deal with the gametes definition of biological sex of Jerry Coyne, Colin Wright etc. Curious what do others think of Strangio’s views/assertions?
https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/07/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-body.html
https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/05/jeannie-suks-newyorker-com-article-was-sloppy-and-inaccurate.html
I have never had a Twitter or Bluesky account. But for some time I’ve been considering joining X simply to access all of JK Rowling’s commentary there —
Helen Joyce, too. Between them, I’ve been devouring content — JKR for trenchant remarks and responses to trans-nonsense. I’ve been reading and listening to everything Helen Joyce for the pleasure and education of her content — and hoping to learn from her, how to present an argument in the face of disagreement.