Gender

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares136 Views

    Texas A&M University president resigns after ‘gender ideology’ controversy

    by

    The president of Texas A&M University’s main campus is stepping down less than two weeks after a student’s viral complaint about “gender ideology” in the classroom set off a chain of repercussions, including the firing of the teacher as well as the dismissal of a dean and department chair.Mark A Welsh III, a retired air force four-star general, has been leading the university since 2022. His career before higher education included time as a fighter pilot, service on the joint chiefs of staff, work as the CIA’s associate director for military affairs, a term as commandant of cadets at the Air Force Academy, and a stint as dean of the Bush School of Government & Public Service at Texas A&M.“President Welsh is a man of honor who has led Texas A&M with selfless dedication,” the university’s chancellor, Glenn Hegar, said in a statement. “We are grateful for his service and contributions. At the same time, we agree that now is the right moment to make a change and to position Texas A&M for continued excellence in the years ahead.”Welsh has not offered a specific reason for why he is leaving his position or clarified whether it is a result of the viral incident, instead simply saying: “Over the past few days, it’s become clear that now is that time” to step down, in a Friday statement.Welsh became president following the 2023 departure of Margaret Katherine Banks, who left amid uproar over the mishandled hiring of a journalism professor, Kathleen McElroy. That controversy drew fire from Texas Republicans because of McElroy’s ties to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, which are now prohibited in the state.According to the Thursday evening announcement, Welsh’s resignation will take effect on Friday.“Today, President Welsh has submitted his resignation, and both the Board of Regents and I agree that this is the right moment for change,” Hegar said in a post on X.Brian Harrison, a Republican state representative who circulated the viral footage and pressed for Welsh’s removal, applauded the outcome.“As the first elected official to call for him to be fired, this news is welcome, although overdue,” Harrison wrote on X. “Now… END ALL DEI AND LGBTQ INDOCTRINATION IN TEXAS!!”The video clip at the center of the controversy, which Harrison shared on 8 September, was originally filmed in July during a children’s literature course. The student who spoke out, whose identity Harrison withheld at their request, and the instructor, Melissa McCoul, are not visible in the footage.In another recording Harrison shared on social media, the same student can be heard speaking with Welsh. She asks Welsh if he approves of LGBTQ+ content being taught at Texas A&M, to which Welsh replies that the courses are typically for students entering fields such as psychiatry, counseling, education and non-profit work.“Those people don’t get to pick who their clients are, what citizens they serve, and they want to understand the issues affecting the people they’re going to treat,” Welsh tells the student. “So there is a professional reason to teach some of these courses.”The Texas governor, Greg Abbott, had threatened to fire Welsh in January after the university’s business school invited advanced PhD students and faculty to a conference designed to recruit Black, Hispanic and Indigenous graduate students.Though Abbott cannot fire university presidents, he appoints the members of the Texas A&M University System board of regents, who do have that authority. Following the threat, Welsh said Texas A&M would pull out of the conference completely. More

    More stories

    • 238 Shares140 Views

      in US Politics

      As boys shift to the right, we are seeing the rise of the ‘new chill girl’ | Naomi Beinart

      by

      Since Donald Trump returned to office, I have noticed a phenomenon at my high school that I call the “new chill girl”. A group of kids is talking casually about something. Seemingly out of the blue, one of the boys makes an off-handed joke. Maybe it’s racist or sexist or homophobic, but whatever the poison, they inject it and the group dynamic shifts ever so slightly. As a general rule, the boys continue as usual while the girls – who tend to be more politically progressive – face a choice: they can speak up, which usually results in them getting the reputation as annoying and unable to take a joke, or they can let it pass and be regarded as a chill girl who isn’t angry or woke. Since November 2024, the latter reaction has become far more common.This kind of fearful silence is becoming more common outside of high schools, too. In December 2024, Disney removed a transgender character from a new series. This April, the New York Times reported that a new Trump administration regulation bars government employees from adding pronouns to their email bios. Two days after that, Gannet, one of the US’s largest newspaper chains, cited Trump’s opposition to diversity, equity and inclusion when announcing that it would no longer publish statistics on employee diversity.This cultural shift promotes nostalgia for an earlier time, before the birth of DEI, when women wore aprons and let their husbands earn the money. As of August, the “trad wife” influencer Hannah Neeleman, better known as Ballerina Farm, has amassed 10 million followers on Instagram alone. Her videos of kneading sourdough and raising her eight kids mark a return to the ideal of women as homemakers. Last November, she appeared on the cover of Evie, a conservative magazine that openly praises Trump.This trickles down to us. In the Trump era, left-leaning teenage girls feel less comfortable expressing political views that could be derided as “woke”. This isn’t because most of them are becoming rightwing: last November, 58% of women ages 18-30 voted for Kamala Harris. It’s because the political atmosphere has changed and progressive-minded girls now feel more afraid of the consequences of speaking their minds.The girls I talked to say it’s riskier to be outspokenly blue. A high school girl reported that boys “are becoming more emboldened, more confident to make these [bigoted] jokes”. Another said that since Trump took office, casual racism and sexism have become common: “We see [the behavior] more and it’s happening to us.” Young women feel social pressure to remain passive in the face of offensive remarks. Your guy friends “will think you’re attacking them”, one girl said, adding that “it’s not worth it” to speak out against every incident. You need to “pick your battles”.A third girl added that the desire to not be known as one of those “super woke” girls is enough to make someone clamp their lips, knowing that if the girl objects, “there is no chance [boys] will ever take you seriously again.” These opinions are harsh, but they’re true. Pew Research Center reports that as of March, 45% of girls ages 13-17 feel “a great deal” of pressure to fit in socially, and as cultural conservatism grows, that changes what fitting in means. Even in comparatively liberal spaces, like my high school, girls who wince at locker room talk risk exclusion. No one wants to hang out with the stickler, so no one wants to become her. And therefore, juvenile illiberalism lives on.Trump has damaged our country in many blatant ways, but what I’m seeing is more subtle. Tectonic shifts don’t always make it to CNN. The cultural effects of this openly racist and sexist government on young people may skew gender relations as we enter the workforce, enabling sexual assault and discrimination and keeping women from positions of power. The divide between young women and young men is growing massively, with no end in sight. Trump is distorting American society, and I fear distorting us.

      Naomi Beinart is a high school student More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Latte-swilling ‘performative males’: why milky drinks are shorthand for liberal

      by

      Another week, another somewhat fictional online buzzword to parse. This time it is the “performative male”, basically the idea that posturing straight men only read books to get laid, outlined in recent trend pieces including the New York Times, Vox, Teen Vogue, Hypebeast, GQ and millions of TikToks.According to the Times, this man “curates his aesthetic in a way that he thinks might render him more likable to progressive women. He is, in short, the antithesis of the toxic man.” Apparently these heterosexual men who read Joan Didion, carry tote bags and listen to Clairo are not in fact human beings who enjoy things but performative jerk-offs who don’t really care about any of that girly stuff and are just trying to impress their feminine opposites. As Vox put it: “think Jacob Elordi when he was photographed with three different books on his person, or Paul Mescal publicly admiring Mitski”. Reading! Enjoying music by women! Perish the thought.Each piece differed slightly in what it defined as the key characteristics of the performative male, but they all shared one detail: he drinks matcha lattes.This was unsurprising. For three decades the latte has been the favored blog-whistle of the trend piece writer. It signals liberalism, femininity, gayness, pretension, gentrification – ideally all of the above – so reflexively that its origins as an insult are rarely revisited.It began in earnest in 1997, when journalist David Brooks writing in the Weekly Standard coined the term “latte liberal”. He was trying, disparagingly, to give name to the crunchy consumerist leftism of the time, in which organic vegetables and world music had become part of the social justice hamper: “You know you’re in a Latte Town when you can hop right off a bike path, browse in a used bookstore with shelves and shelves of tomes on Marxism the owner can no longer get rid of, and then drink coffee at a place with a punnish name that must have the word ‘Grounds’ in it, before sauntering through an African drum store or a feminist lingerie shop.”Brooks wanted to hint that leftism is a luxury only the bourgeois can afford – an idea encapsulated by the earlier formation of champagne socialist. But the latte proved a stickier, more evocative symbol, painting liberals as soft and effete.In 2004, lattes really entered politics, when a Republican Pac ran an ad accusing presidential candidate Howard Dean of being a “latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving left-wing freak show”.Lattes also became a byword for gentrification. In 2000, when the Brooklyn neighborhood Williamsburg was, the Times bemoaned at the time, reaching “the point of hipster saturation”, the final straw was “a local Italian specialty store and a working-class institution … advertising the arrival of the Chai latte”. In New York Magazine’s 2005 feature L-ification, the publication mapped out how gentrification was spreading further east into Brooklyn along the route of the L train with little latte icons, a milky glyph of whiteness by that point understood by everyone.Noticeably, the latte form remains permanent, even as the type of latte shifts. Newt Gingrich accused New York mayor Bill De Blasio of “small soy latte liberalism” in 2014 – emphasising that the only thing more girlish than drinking a big dairy milky coffee was drinking a small vegan milky coffee. On Drake’s 2010 song Thank Me Now, when he’s asking the woman he’s left behind if she still thinks of him, he croons: “But do I ever come up in discussion / Over double-pump lattes and low-fat muffins?”Now the performative male has once again given rise to the idea that there is something inherently disingenuous about a milky beverage. Interestingly as the latte has changed colour, from white to green, the stereotype has expanded beyond the white liberal: matcha hails a diverse new generation of milky boys.The idea of the performative male started out mostly as a joke on TikTok, where knowing posters would show a man reading at the gym, for example, and joke that he was pretending. Contests in which men meet in parks to compete to be the most performative have been funny, postmodern, heterosexual versions of drag.But with each passing write-up, the knowing humorous element has been rinsed away, until Vox earnestly announced in its piece that the “MeToo movement showed us that even supposed ‘nice guy’ could be capable of alleged manipulation and abuse – that in fact, they could use their enlightenment as a kind of shield”. If you see a man with a matcha latte, you need to run!None of the pieces particularly wanted to reckon with the fact that, as Judith Butler put it, “gender identity is a performative accomplishment” to begin with, or that Arthur Schopenhauer was complaining in the mid-19th century that a performative reader “usually confuses the purchase of books with the acquisition of their contents”. Do we read in order to get laid? Only since forever.View image in fullscreenIronically much of this ribbing comes from the same people who decry a crisis of masculinity, and worry for future generations of boys who feel like they lack purpose and companionship. Yet in the world of the performative male, even having female friends and drinking milky coffee is a divergence from true masculinity.Why is the latte such an enduring emblem for this distrust – a way to call men you do not like effeminate?Partly it is the allegory of milk, the pursed mouth of a graphic designer on a coffee cup as a surrogate for the Madonna del Latte, the thousands of medieval depictions of Jesus nursing at Mary’s breast. Grown men drinking milk has always been laden in symbolism, the blend of nurture and eroticism evocative of a sexual infantalization. It is why so many films from A Clockwork Orange to Babygirl centre milk as a poison beyond a place of regular intoxication. When Kelis sings that her milkshake brings her boys to the yard, the lyric is so heavy in implication that the exact innuendo she is reaching for is irrelevant.Even the ancient Greeks used to have their own version of the latte joke, belittling the Persians who drank milk: Aristotle said Empedocles described it as “whitish pus”.But the milk in the context of the latte also turns coffee, a drink which was sold as fuel, bitter black stuff for TV detectives and the working man, into a sweet little treat. A latte fundamentally dilutes the taste of coffee and so it is easy to present those who drink it as watering down their wine. Even though the iconography of the latte liberal is now so strong it has stretched to drinks that do not contain any coffee to begin with. According to the performative male trend pieces, drinking a matcha latte indicates to women that you are soft, feminist-leaning and worldly (after all, it’s from Japan).Even though the latte is supposed to be this bastion of girlishness, women are not exempt from being chastised for drinking them, although the latte trope for them is more often a reflection of being superficial than performatively feminine. The logic of this makes little sense: latte liberal men are supposedly too European to be masculine, yet iced latte girlies are gormless Americans sucking on the straw of consumerism. No matter, the two sit side by side, one clutching a hot cup of simp soup, the other a pumpkin-spiced lobotomy. They are a pair one can project all their prejudices towards, without having to interrogate any of it too much.The irony is that hipsters and gentrifiers in coastal towns are rarely drinking lattes these days. They are much more likely to be sipping on a single origin V60 that’s been carefully weighed out on a digital scale. Indeed the stereotype could easily be flipped around – that it’s red states where complicated online Starbucks orders and Stanley cups filled with 32oz of latte abound. In the best survey of the coffee Americans actually drink and how it aligns with their politics by Diana C Mutz and Jahnavi S Rao, the differences were negligible. Although it is true that liberals do prefer lattes over conservatives (16% v 9%), the same research found liberals also prefer the more masculine-coded espressos over conservatives by a much bigger margin, and the vast majority of Americans prefer brewed coffee.But the milky latte stereotype persists because it is creamy and white (or green) and vaguely Italian. When GQ is asking “Are Matcha Men the New Soy Boys” you have got to wonder if gendering beverages has become the most performative act of all. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Publications aimed at LGBTQ+ audiences face discrimination from advertisers, editors warn

      by

      Publications aimed at LGBTQ+ and other diverse audiences are facing “good old-fashioned discrimination” as advertisers avoid them after political attacks on diversity and inclusion campaigns, editors have said.Senior figures at publications aimed at the gay community and other minority groups said a previous “gold rush” to work with such titles was over.There has been a backlash in the US over corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in the past 18 months, which has led to some big names rolling back their plans.Tag Warner, the chief executive of Gay Times, said his publication, which had been growing digitally in the US, had lost 80% of its advertisers in the past year. It has also lost in excess of £5m in expected advertiser revenue.Warner, who has led the outlet since 2019, said his title’s growth had been accompanied by an enthusiasm from brands to embrace LGBTQ+ audiences. He blames an anti-DEI drive in the US for the dramatic shift.“I know that media and marketing is also going through a challenging year anyway, but when we’re thinking about other organisations that don’t talk to diverse themes, they’re not nearly as impacted as we are,” he said. “This is just good old-fashioned discrimination. Because discrimination doesn’t have to make business sense. Discrimination doesn’t have to be logical. Discrimination is discrimination.“We’re really experiencing the impact of what happens when voices that are pressuring organisations to give in to less inclusive perspectives start winning. Then it creates this massive behavioural shift in brands and organisations.”Nafisa Bakkar, the co-founder of Amaliah, a publication aimed at “amplifying the voices of Muslim women”, said there had been a “change in mood” among brands and advertisers. “There was this DNI [diversity and inclusion] gold rush,” she said. “It is, I would say, well and truly over.“We work with a lot of UK advertisers, but I would say that the US has a lot more emphasis on what they would call ‘brand safety’, which I think is a code word for ‘we don’t want to rock the boat’. I would say there is a lot more focus on this element.”Ibrahim Kamara, the founder of the youth platform GUAP, which has a large black and ethnically diverse audience, said he had detected a “relative difference” from 2020 in approaches from brands.He and others cited the economic pressures on advertisers generally in recent years. However, he said the “hype and the PR around wanting to support and connect with diverse audiences” had also subsided.“The thing that most people within these kind of spaces can probably agree on is that the energy and the PR is very different now,” he said. “It was almost a badge of honour to be able to say that you’re supporting certain communities. Now, I’ve seen that lots of the diversity and inclusion people that were hired around that period have probably lost their jobs. It doesn’t have the same PR effect any more.”Warner said the anti-DEI impact pre-dated the return of Donald Trump to the White House. Figures such as the conservative pundit Robby Starbuck have been engaged in a long-running anti-DEI campaign, pressuring firms to drop their diversity efforts. However, Warner said Trump’s arrival “gave everyone, I think, permission to be honest about it”.Not all publications in the sector have been hit in the same way as Gay Times. Companies with business models less reliant on US advertising, as well as some big players with long-established relationships, said they had managed to negotiate the changing political environment.“Brands are nervous, that’s for sure, or careful – or a combination of both,” said Darren Styles, the managing director of Stream Publishing, which publishes Attitude magazine. “They’re aware it can be a lightning rod for a vocal minority. But our experience is that most people are holding their ground, if not doubling down.”Styles also said he was not complacent, however, given the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform party in the UK and its lack of historical support for the LGBTQ+ community.“I’m not incautious about the future,” he said. “Who knows what next year will bring, because that narrative is not going away. Obviously, there’s the rise of Reform in the polls.“[Farage] is quite clearly not an ally to our community and he’s expressed disdain in the past at the awards we’ve given out to people in the trans community. So it is a worry as political momentum gains around there. But I think broadly, consumers in the UK are a bit more capable of thinking for themselves.”Mark Berryhill, the chief executive of equalpride, which publishes prominent US titles like Out and The Advocate, said some brands and agencies “may have been a little bit more cautious than they have been in the past”. However, he said it had so far meant deals had taken longer to be completed, in a tough economic climate.He said the political headwinds made it more important to highlight that working with such titles was simply a sound business decision. “We’ve tried to do a better job in this political climate of just selling the importance of our buying power,” he said. “Everybody’s cautious and I don’t think it’s just LGBTQ. I think they’re cautious in general right now with their work with minority owned companies.“The one thing that maybe this whole controversy has helped us with a little bit is to really make brands realise it’s a business decision. It’s not just a charity or something you should do because you feel guilty.“You should do it because it’s the right thing to support LGBTQ journalism. We’re small. We need to get the word out. We have important stories to tell. But it’s also a good business decision. The more we show that side, certain brands will come along.” More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      What is going on with Marjorie Taylor Greene? | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Here’s a sentence I never thought I’d write: Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right conspiracy theorist and bigot who also happens to be a Republican congresswoman, has suddenly started to speak (a small amount of) sense. It’s unclear what exactly precipitated it, but the Georgia congresswoman has declared war on her fellow Republicans.“The course that [the Republican party] is on, I don’t want to have anything to do with it,” Greene told the Daily Mail last week.Greene went on to complain that her male colleagues treat their female peers badly, referencing the Trump administration pulling Elise Stefanik’s nomination for United Nations ambassador in favor of Mike Waltz. To refresh your memory, just a couple of months before getting confirmed as US ambassador to the UN, Waltz was ousted as national security adviser after it was revealed he had mistakenly added a journalist to a private Signal chat used to discuss strikes in Yemen. Weird how some people – and by “people” I mean well-connected white men – have a way of always failing up.“[Stefanik] got screwed by the White House,” Greene told the Mail. “I think there’s other women in our party that are really sick and tired of the way men treat Republican women.” Which is interesting wording: Greene doesn’t seem to care about how Republican men treat women in general, just the ones in the party. Still, baby steps and all that. It’s certainly amusing to see Greene suddenly have a revelation that a party led by a legally defined sexual predator may have some disturbing views about women.Greene seems to be having a lot of revelations lately: she recently became the first Republican lawmaker to say that there is a genocide happening in Gaza. She also criticized the Florida representative Randy Fine for dismissing a report about Israel’s forced starvation in Gaza as propaganda and writing “starve away” on social media.Fine, by the way, has previously said Gaza should be nuked and posted that Palestinians are “demons that live on Earth … they only deserve death.” There’s always very little outrage from lawmakers, or media coverage, about his hateful remarks because anti-Palestinian racism is a bipartisan position in the US.To be clear, I don’t think Greene’s comments about Gaza have anything to do with empathy for Palestinians. Unfortunately, I also don’t think her comments were prompted by an analysis of the growing consensus from respected experts that a genocide is under way. Rather, it’s more likely that Greene, a Christian nationalist who has a history of promoting Islamophobic and antisemitic conspiracy theories, is motivated by antisemitic impulses here. Let me be unequivocal about this: while she may occasionally be making more sense recently, Greene is no friend to the Palestinian cause specifically or progressive issues more generally.Nevertheless, it’s still fun to watch the congresswoman sow discord in the Republican party by calling for a release of the Epstein files, criticizing US strikes in Iran and denouncing Fox News. On Wednesday, for example, she took aim at the Fox News personality Mark Levin, who called the congresswoman a “lunatic”, by calling Fox News irrelevant.“[M]ost of the people that watch Fox News are very much up in age, the baby boomer generation, who I love … but that’s their biggest audience. That’s not the future of America,” the congresswoman said. That statement echoes comments she made to the former Florida Republican lawmaker Matt Gaetz in June, when she called Fox News and the New York Post “propaganda” and “neocon network news”.In that same conversation she said: “We have propaganda news on our side, just like the left does, and the American people have been brainwashed into believing that America has to engage in these foreign wars in order for us to survive, and it’s absolutely not true.”Keep going, Marjorie! While I can’t stress enough that MTG is no ally, that doesn’t mean she’s not an accidental asset when it comes to destroying the Republican party. I’ve lost any hope that the Democrats, a party that largely consists of self-interested careerists who don’t believe in much other than their own advancement and are happy to help fund a genocide, will mount any sort of meaningful fight against the worst instincts of Trumpism. When Maga eventually collapses it will be from infighting, not Democratic opposition.Trump names registered sex offender to lead children’s sports initiativeLawrence Taylor, a former New York Giants linebacker and registered sex offender has been appointed to a council that will advise on matters including youth sports. I can’t wait to hear from all the anti-trans “feminist” writers who declared Trump a “feminist hero” and “feminist icon” after he used an executive order to “protect” women by ensuring trans women couldn’t compete in women’s sports.Why are people throwing sex toys at US women’s basketball games?“The dildo is a weaponized farce,” writes Lee Escobedo in the Guardian. “It’s thrown not just to interrupt but to dominate the narrative, to remind players that their gender, their careers and their stage remain vulnerable to mockery.”Sexism and misogyny drive record levels of abuse at English football gamesIt’s not just basketball that has a major misogyny problem.I regret to inform you that there is ‘breast milk ice cream’ nowAnd of course it’s going viral.Women shouldn’t hold office, says Republican woman running for officeArizona state senate hopeful Mylie Biggs, the daughter of Republican representative Andy Biggs, told a podcast last year that she wouldn’t “vote for any female [and] I don’t know if females should be in office”.Musk’s Grok generates fake Taylor Swift nudes when you put it on ‘spicy’ modeMusk once offered to impregnate Swift. Not exactly surprising that his company’s chatbot, which has also praised Hitler in the past, would digitally undress her.Gates Foundation pledges $2.5bn to women’s health initiativesAccording to Bill Gates, his foundation is now the primary funder when it comes to researching the vaginal microbiome. It would be nice if we didn’t have to depend on the largesse of billionaires for women’s health funding.Report reveals abuse of pregnant women and children at US Ice facilitiesYet more evidence that the “pro-life” crowd, who have little to say about this, are not “pro-life” they are simply pro forced birth.What is the real death toll in Gaza?In a column this week, I argued the 60,000 figure is a major undercount. Responding to my column, Rachel Taylor, executive director of Every Casualty Counts, an international NGO that works to document casualties of armed violence, pointed out the following: “The Gaza population register is managed by the Israeli ministry of interior – they certify all births and deaths in Gaza. The Israeli authorities could immediately dispel all doubts about the number of deaths in Gaza by releasing the registered fatality figures from the past two years. But they choose not to. Why?”Sandra Domínguez fought against femicide in Mexico, then became a victim herselfDomínguez and her husband were found dead earlier this year and, while it’s not clear who killed them, her family believe her murder was tied to her feminist activism in Oaxaca.“Oaxaca is the most dangerous state in Mexico for activists,” the Guardian writes in a piece about Domínguez. “Since 2018, 58 people have been murdered and six more are missing.”Meta illegally collected data from period and pregnancy app, jury findsI know, I know: hard to believe that Meta would be doing something dodgy with people’s sensitive data. A real shocker.The week in pawtriarchyIt’s been another unbearable news week, so please enjoy this paw-late cleanser of a tiny Pomeranian called Scout chasing a large bear out of its house. Scout may only be six pounds but it’s clear who is top dog. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Federal Judge Certifies Class Action for Transgender People Seeking Passports

      by

      A preliminary injunction blocking the State Department from enforcing a new passport limit extends to all trans passport seekers.A federal judge in Boston granted class-action status to transgender and nonbinary Americans on Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging a U.S. State Department policy that requires passports to reflect only the holder’s sex recorded on their original birth certificate.The order extends a preliminary injunction blocking the State Department from enforcing the policy against six plaintiffs to apply to all class members who apply for or update passports while the case proceeds. In the earlier order from April, U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick concluded that the passport policy likely violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee because it discriminates based on sex and is “rooted in irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans.”The State Department filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction last week.The government maintains that it has a strong interest in passports that accurately reflect the holder’s sex. The State Department adopted the new policy earlier this year to comply with an executive order from President Trump directing all government agencies to limit official recognition of transgender identity and mandating that federal documents reflect what it termed the “immutable biological classification as either male or female.”In court documents, plaintiffs argued that a mismatch between the sex listed on their passport and their gender identity puts them at risk of suspicion and hostility that other Americans do not face. During the first weeks of Mr. Trump’s administration, several plaintiffs received passports with an “F” or “M” marker contrary to the one they had requested. Another learned that selecting an “X” marker, indicating a nonbinary gender identity, was no longer an option, though it had been allowed since 2022.The government argued against certifying trans and nonbinary passport holders as a legal class in the case, contending that gender identity is subjective and that a class-wide injunction would create an undue administrative burden.Judge Kobick, who was nominated by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., found that those claims did not outweigh significant harm faced by transgender and nonbinary passport holders. She noted that plaintiffs in the case had described being forced to “effectively ‘out’ themselves every time they presented their passports,” leading to anxiety and fear safety fears.“These are the types of injuries that cannot adequately be measured or compensated by money damages or a later-issued remedy,’’ she wrote. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is using his assault on government to retaliate against women | Judith Levine

      by

      Last week, a federal judge blocked the justice department from canceling $3.2m in federal grants to the American Bar Association (ABA). The court agreed with the ABA’s claim that the administration was retaliating against it for taking public stances against Donald Trump.But how had the US president retaliated? Which grants had he clawed back? Those supporting programs that train lawyers to defend victims of domestic and sexual violence.It was just one of Trump’s many acts of aggression against perceived enemies that just happen to – or quite deliberately – target women.During the 2016 presidential campaign, after the release of the “grab ’em by the pussy” tape, Vox’s Libby Nelson noted that there was something fundamentally different about Trump’s sexism from the sexism of his predecessors. “Usually, the critique of Republican candidates has been based on policy – healthcare access and abortion rights – or on attitudes heavily influenced by religion,” she wrote. But “Trump’s anti-feminism owes more to the gleeful vulgarity and implicit threats of violence of 4chan than the traditional debate over what a woman’s role should be in the public square.”Trump II is both a personal and a political misogynist – a chimera with the soul of a snake and the brains of a policy wonk, transplanted from the authors of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.The widest target of Trump’s aggression is the universe of people capable of having babies. Four days after the inauguration, his administration directed the justice department’s civil rights division to cease enforcing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (Face) Act, which prohibits harassment or blockage of patients entering abortion clinics. His administration dismissed three ongoing cases, pardoned 23 convicted violators of the law, and limited future prosecutions to “cases presenting significant aggravating factors, such as death, serious bodily harm, or serious property damage”.In March, he began withholding tens of millions of dollars from Title X, the only federal program supporting reproductive healthcare. The move was not explicitly anti-abortion – the Hyde Amendment banned federal funding for abortion 50 years ago – but it was surely aimed at pleasing religious fundamentalists who oppose all interference with “natural” baby-making. Lots of providers, including some Planned Parenthood affiliates, immediately collapsed, leaving millions of people with no family planning, cancer screening or prenatal services. Now, having failed repeatedly to defund Planned Parenthood through legislation, Republicans are trying to hide the dirty deed in the budget. And like much of the “waste, fraud, and abuse” targeted by the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge), these cuts would cost taxpayers far more than they would save: according to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost will be $300m over the next 10 years in unwanted births and shifts of reproductive services to other providers.Trump isn’t sparing mothers who want to be mothers, either. A week ago, funding to study maternal mortality was rescinded and most of the workers who monitor and improve maternal and child health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were placed on leave. The cuts came just after researchers at the National Institutes of Health published a paper documenting a huge rise in mothers’ deaths in childbirth or within a year afterward, most notably among Native American and Black women; the authors urged the government to make combatting these deaths “an urgent public health priority”.Where women’s bodies are now subject to harm by intentional neglect, they will also be more vulnerable to harm by violence. Before his inauguration, Trump called for the execution of rapists. A few months later, the justice department suspended grant applications from non-profits providing emergency shelter, legal assistance, and crisis services to victims of domestic and sexual violence under the Violence Against Women Act. The agencies were caught promoting “woke” agendas – evident from the word “gender”, as in “gender-based violence”, in their mission statements. The grant program appears to be back up on the justice department website, but no one knows for how long.In late April, the administration zeroed out all funding for training, auditing, data collection and victim support under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (Prea), which Congress passed unanimously in 2003. Prea does not protect migrants in detention, but the Department of Homeland Security was nevertheless subject to oversight, and that included investigating sexual abuse by Ice employees. Not any more. In spite of thousands of complaints of sexual violence against detained women and children, the Trump administration closed the department’s three watchdog agencies, including the offices through which detainees could lodge complaints.As part of its elimination of anything suggestive of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), the administration halted the military’s sexual assault prevention training. The defense department reported in 2023 that nearly a quarter of active-duty women were subject to sexual harassment – and they are just the ones who risked coming forward.The policies that smash the legal bulwarks against sexual violence and those that put pregnant people’s lives at risk make for the most compelling subject lines on fundraising emails from advocates for women, people of color and other legally protected classes hardest.But the disproportionate harm these folks are suffering from the decimation of the federal workforce by Doge is possibly most consequential, because it may not be reversible. Women and Black people are more likely to work in government jobs than in the private sector; a recent McKinsey analysis found that women, particularly women of color, are promoted at higher rates in public institutions than in private corporations. But government jobs also provide union representation, job security, pensions and other benefits that lift people of color into the middle class and allow them to accumulate the property and wealth denied them since slavery – benefits that do not accrue to home health aides, chambermaids and workers in the other low-paid, precarious occupations where women and people of color predominate.“For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution,” vowed candidate Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference early in 2023. But it is Trump himself who feels most wronged and betrayed, with women – the pussy-hatted protesters who overran Washington on the second day of his first administration, the sex worker Stormy Daniels, who publicly poked fun at his self-celebrated endowment, the magazine writer E Jean Carroll, awarded tens of millions of dollars in damages for his sexual assault and defamation – perhaps the greatest wrongdoers and traitors. Even Melania is no longer pretending to like him.Like his woman-hating followers, this man, who has used his wealth and his body to impose his will on women, feels sorely victimized by them. Now he has more power than any other man in the world to exact his revenge.

      Judith Levine is a Brooklyn journalist and essayist, a contributing writer to the Intercept and the author of five books. Her Substack, Today in Fascism, is at judithlevine.substack.com More

    • 213 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans are attacking childcare funding. Their goal? To push women out of the workforce | Moira Donegan

      by

      Last month, the White House issued a proposed budget to Congress that completely eliminated funding for Head Start, the six-decade-old early childhood education program for low-income families that serves as a source of childcare for large swaths of the American working class.The funding was restored in the proposed budget after an outcry, but large numbers of employees who oversee the program at the office of Head Start were laid off in a budget-slashing measure under Robert F Kennedy Jr, the head of the Department of Health and Human Services. On Thursday, Kennedy said funding for the program would not be axed, but more cuts to childcare funding are likely coming: some Republicans have pushed to repeal a five-decade-old tax credit for daycare. The White House is entertaining proposals on how to incentivize and structurally coerce American women into bearing more children, but it seems to be determined to make doing so as costly to those women’s careers as possible.That’s because the Republicans’ childcare policy, like their pro-natalist policy, is based on one goal: undoing the historic gains in women’s rights and status, and pushing American women out of the workforce, out of public life, out of full participation in society – and into a narrow domestic role of confinement, dependence and isolation.The New York Times reported this week that the White House is now not only looking for ways to make more women have children, but to encourage “parents” to stay home to raise them. “Parents” here is a euphemism. Roughly 80% of stay-at-home parents are mothers: cultural traditions that encourage women, and not men, to sacrifice their careers for caregiving, along with persistent wage inequalities that make women, on the whole, lower earners than their male partners, both incentivize women, and not men, to drop out of the workforce and stay home when they have children.This state of affairs has been worsened by the dramatic rise in the cost of childcare, which is prohibitively expensive for many parents. The average cost of childcare per child per year in the US is now well north of $11,000, according to Child Care Aware of America, an industry advocacy group. In major cities such as New York, that price is significantly higher: from $16,000 to $19,000 per year. Existing tax credits need to be expanded, not eliminated, to reduce this burden on mothers and their families and to enable women to join the workforce at rates comparable to men and commensurate with their dignity and capacities. Currently, 26% of mothers do not engage in paid work, a figure that has barely budged in 40 years. Largely because of the unequally distributed burdens of childcare, men participate in the paid labor force at a rate that is more than 10% higher than women.One might think that the solution would be to invest more in high-quality childcare, so that providers could open more slots, children could access more resources, and women could go to work and expend their talents in productive ways that earn them money, make use of their gifts and provide more dignity for women and more stability for families. This is not what the American right is proposing: Brad Wilcox, a sociologist who promotes traditional family and gender relations, has called such policy initiatives “work-ist”. Conservatives are proposing, instead, that women go back to the kitchen.The Trump administration, and the American right more broadly, wants the rate of women’s employment to be even lower, because it is advancing a lie that women are naturally, inevitably, uniformly and innately inclined to caregiving, child rearing and homemaking – and not to the positions of intellectual achievement, responsibility, leadership, ingenuity or independence that women may aspire to in the public world. “We cannot get away from the fact that a child is hardwired to bond with Mom,” says Janet Erickson, a fellow at the rightwing Institute for Family Studies, who once co-authored an op-ed with JD Vance calling on “parents” to drop out of the workforce to raise children. “I just think, why should we deny that?”This kind of vague, evidence-free gesturing toward evolutionary psychology – the notion that babies are “hardwired” to prefer mothers who are not employed – is a common conservative tick: a recourse to dishonest and debunked science to lend empiricism to bigotry. There is in fact no evolutionary reason, and no biological reason, for mothers, and not fathers, to abandon independence, ambition or life outside the home for the sake of a child. The only reason is a sexist one.Over the past decade, the left launched few vigorous defenses of a feminist politics that seeks to advance and secure women’s access to public life, paid work and fair remuneration. The American left has launched vigorous criticisms of the “girlboss”, a figure of malignant female ambition who seemed to make the exploitations of capitalism more offensive by virtue of her sex, and it has instead offered critiques of women’s ambition and romantic defenses of the labor of “care” that just happens to overlap with women’s traditional – and traditionally unpaid – roles in the home. This leftwing rhetoric has at times mirrored the similar romanticization of the unpaid housewife of yesteryear from the right, which has embraced tradwives, homesteading fantasies and an aestheticized rustic simplicity that aims to contrast feminist gains in the workforce with a fantasy of women’s rest. Together, these strains of rhetorical opposition to women in the workforce have made anti-feminism into a new kind of “socialism of fools” – a misguided misdirection of anger and resentment at the rapaciousness of capitalism towards a social justice movement for the rights of an oppressed class.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut what is on offer from the political right is not about the refashioning of work and life to be less extractive and exploitative for women, and particularly for mothers. It is instead about a sex segregation of human experience, an effort to make much of public life inaccessible to women. Combined with the right wing’s successful attack on the right to abortion, the Trump administration’s dramatic cuts to Title X programs that provide contraceptive access, and the rescinding of federal grants aimed at helping working women, what emerges from the rightwing policy agenda is an effort to force women out of education, out of decently paid work and into pregnancy, unemployment and dependence on men.Theirs is an effort to shelter men from women’s economic competition, to revert to the regressive cultural modes of an imagined past, and to impose an artificially narrow vision of the capacities, aspirations, talents and desires of half of the American people.Murray Rothbard, the paleoconservative 20th-century economist whose ideas have had a profound influence on the Trumpist worldview, once vowed: “We shall repeal the 20th century.” As far as the Republican right is concerned, it seems to want to repeal the gains of 20th-century feminism first.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Symbolism Behind India’s ‘Operation Sindoor’

      by

      The name for the military attack on Pakistan brings to mind a woman who became shorthand for the grief wrought by a terrorist attack.Himanshi Narwal was first a symbol of tragedy, then a target of hate.Last month, Ms. Narwal was captured in an image sitting beside her slain husband, who was among 26 people killed in a terrorist attack on the Indian side of Kashmir. As India struck Pakistan on Wednesday in retaliation, Ms. Narwal became shorthand for why India picked the name “Operation Sindoor” for its military action.Sindoor, or vermilion powder, is a traditional marker of the marital status of Hindu women. Married women wear it either in the parting of their hair or on their foreheads, and they wipe it off if they become widowed. During the April 22 terrorist attack, many women lost their husbands, who were targeted because they were Hindu. But few received the media attention that Ms. Narwal has after the image of her by her husband’s side went viral.The Indian government’s choice of the name Operation Sindoor signaled its intention to avenge the widowed women. On social media, the Indian Army announced the strikes with a stark image that included a jar of spilled sindoor, which resembled spattered blood.“Operation Sindoor” also signals to right-wing Hindu groups — many of which favor more traditionally defined gender roles — that the Hindu nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is listening to their demands for vengeance.Carrying the body of Vinay Narwal, a naval officer who was killed in the attack last month.Bhawika Chhabra/ReutersBut some feminists have criticized the use of the word sindoor.Hindu nationalism is predominantly driven by a male view of the world, said V. Geetha, a feminist historian who writes about gender, caste and class. “Women figure in it as objects to be protected or as mother figures goading their men to prove their heroism,” Ms. Geetha said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More