The Week in Woke

Thanks to @ComradeArthur/ArthurK.

Sad! Another storybook Hollywood marriage ends! Diff'rent Strokes actor Todd Bridges, who I imagine was on some terrible celebrity reality shows in the late nineties but hasn't worked since, is getting divorced from his photographer/designer wife of three and a half years

She's a very handsome woman.

Bridges filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage (Divorce) Without Minor Children on Tuesday, according to Maricopa County Superior Court records in Arizona.

No children? Really? This surprises me.

City Journal: The Supreme Court has turned decisively against woke ideology on transgenderism.

First: Gorsuch's woke betrayal, insisting that a transgender who wanted to LARP as a woman at a funeral home during funeral services for the dead could not be fired or demanded to dress as a man. The mourners, Gorsuch decided, would just have to stop being transphobes.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court found that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. Such an interpretation would have surprised anyone alive in the 1960s, when the federal government routinely fired employees even suspected of being gay. But this aspect of the ruling wasn't that controversial in 2020. Most Americans supported same-sex marriage and, outside of certain religious employers, few businesses had any reason to fire workers because of their sexual orientation.

But Bostock included a companion case that led to a far more sweeping ruling. A Michigan funeral home employed a biological male who later experienced gender dysphoria and decided to "live and work full-time as a woman," including by wearing female attire. Concerned about how grieving families might react to a man dressed as a woman, the funeral home fired the employee. The Court's majority, in an opinion by Neil Gorsuch, held that federal civil rights law prohibits terminations based on gender identity. Mourners, in effect, would have to get with the times.

But since then, the Court has turned.

The gender-identity aspect of Bostock immediately raised pressing legal questions. Did Title IX require schools to allow biological males to compete on female teams? Did the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause bar bans on "gender-affirming" surgeries for minors? Did the law require religious hospitals to remove healthy reproductive organs to facilitate gender transitions?

In the wake of Bostock, the answer to these questions, and others, seemed to be yes. Society was expected to "affirm" gender identity, support adolescents seeking puberty blockers, and accommodate social transition. Parents faced pressure to accept their child's transition; public schools were said to have duties to adopt gender-identity curricula, manage student transitions, and permit biological males to compete in female sports. Those who resisted risked being labeled bigots.

But then the "arc of the moral universe" began bending rightward. After Bostock, state legislatures across the country prohibited medical gender procedures for minors, even with parental consent. Sports fans objected to biologically male athletes like Lia Thomas winning against female athletes. Even some who accepted Bostock's sexual-orientation holding grew uneasy with its implications for gender identity.

Perhaps the most effective political ad of the 2024 presidential election spoke to this issue: "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you." On Inauguration Day, President Trump signed an executive order declaring, "It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female." Critics may have thought the order was mere symbolism, but Trump's policy reflected the position around which public opinion had coalesced--that asserting biological truth does not constitute bigotry.

The Supreme Court soon adapted to this shift. Consider six rulings over the past year that all point in the same direction.

United States v. Shilling allowed the Department of Defense to discharge transgender service members.

United States v. Skrmetti held that states could prohibit medical gender treatments for minors.

Mahmoud v. Taylor ruled that parents have a religious-liberty right to opt their children out of learning about "LGBTQ-inclusive books."

Trump v. Orr allowed the State Department to print passports that list only a person's biological sex.

Mirabelli v. Bonta found that schools cannot secretly transition students to another gender without telling their parents.

Chiles v. Salazar held that Colorado could not prohibit therapists from counseling people to be comfortable with their biological sex.

Finally, in a seventh, still-pending case, West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Court will likely rule that colleges can exclude biological males from female sports.

One year after having been #cancelled by the lunatic left for "denigrating the seriousness of domestic violence," Dax Sheppard and Kirsten Bell are still apologizing.

Let's look at the horrible offense they committed:

Dax Shepard is speaking out about that Kristen Bell anniversary post backlash.

On the April 6 episode of his "Armchair Expert" podcast, the "Parenthood" star, 51, addressed the controversy surrounding Bell's Oct. 17 Instagram post celebrating their wedding anniversary. The "Good Place" actress, 45, wrote, "Happy 12th wedding anniversary to the man who, after [an] episode of 'Dateline,' once said to me: 'I would never kill you. A lot of men have killed their wives at a certain point. Even though I'm heavily incentivized to kill you, I never would.'"

The post sparked outrage as some fans argued Bell was making light of domestic violence and that it was tone-deaf during Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Speaking with his guest Nikki Glaser on "Armchair Expert," Shepard alluded to the situation when he dismissed "all these people that are convinced I'm beating Kristen," arguing those who were "outraged" about the post were people who have "never been in a relationship."

Who doesn't have Domestic Violence Awareness Month marked on their calendars?

Regarding these people never being in a relationship: Yes, they're all femcels who are bitterly jealous that other women have known the touch of a man. "Based Camp" examines the evidence that these gross and smelly women are actually "Spiteful Mutants" who are embittered for being excluded from the relationship market and are attempting to destroy society as vengeance. Simone explains that people who are "malformed" in some way, by choice, by birth, by psychology, or by self-mutilation, seek to undermine other people's ability to successfully mate. Here's a Guy With A British Accent talking about Spiteful Mutants as a mental maladapation which then produces a phyiscally-maladapted form (though I imagine the causation also goes the other way).

Do you object to you children being raped by gangs of barbaric foreign invaders?

Well, an Islamic professor has simple advice for you, Racist: "Get over it."

This is their country now. You'll play by their rules.

[The College Fix:]

The Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University recently told social media users to "get over it" in response to concerns about a link between "rape gangs" and Islam.

Professor Jonathan Brown dismissed concerns about the crisis in the United Kingdom in two now-deleted X posts, the Daily Caller reported.

Rupert Lowe, an Independent Member of Parliament, wrote in a post on X, "There is a link between the rape gangs and one particular religion -- we have seen it again and again and again at our inquiry."

"That religion is Islam. As a country, we must have the courage to face up to that fact," he wrote.

Brown replied, "get over it."

He then wrote the same phrase in response to another user who called his remark "absurdly evil."

Stalinist neurotics fled Twitter for Bluesky to escape the toxic people, and discovered that they were the toxic people all along.

And now the site is dying because the toxic neurotics can't stop endlessly purging everyone on the site. Even other leftwingers -- identifying as "queer" -- are pointing this out:

More femcels marrying themselves:

This poster points out that the media is -- brace yourselves -- lying to you. There is no "trend" of women marrying themselves. This is a one-off event and the media is repackaging it as a Hot New Trend:

Sarah Haider 👾 @SarahTheHaider

Actually I'd say this article is a great example of how coverage distorts discourse--we endlessly ruminate over the significance of things that aren’t really happening.

The piece is mostly about one woman, whose planned 40th began to look like a wedding, so she incorporated more elements to that effect.

Mickey Kaus used to say that there was a "hoary old rule" in journalism that you can write a "trend" piece if you had three examples of a thing happening. But in the internet age, clickbaity editors dropped that to two. And now we're down to One Single Incidence Makes a Trend.

But I dunno. We have heard of women "marrying themselves" a dozen times in the past.

Yes, it's real. The community note points out that it's pushing this message for real -- and only after backlash did they resort to the coward's claim, "I was just being satirical."

The ad is not satire. It was falsely called satire after backlash. Yes the ad uses humor (person awkwardly interrupting couple) for Willerslev to express his views but they are stated as fact without critique. Satire critiques its subject, which the ad doesn't do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/kultur/dr2-video-med-ekse-willerslev-gaar-verden-rundt-beskyldes-racisme-mod-hvide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jm2w6sGlNQ

https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/2010966093817348398

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 05:10 PM

| Access Comments