#congress is that you??? are you enthusiastically supporting me???

[sirfrogsworth]

@neolesbian

Okay, but you cannot end the statement there.

Then what?

I promise I am not looking to be contentious. I'd prefer not to fight and have a discussion. I am genuinely curious where you go from there. I just don't understand your point of view.

I'll tell you my thought process and you are free to tell me yours.

So you don't vote for Biden. Do you not vote at all? Do you have a viable alternative candidate? Or do you plan to do a protest vote for someone with no chance of winning?

Also, what if you or someone who feels the same as you lives in an area where not voting for Biden is essentially a spoiler vote for Trump? Do you still support not voting for Biden?

What do you think the consequences of that could be?

Every single far right politician is enthusiastically calling for blood. All of them want to fund the Israeli government and IDF, probably to a greater extent.

So I feel you get the same result, but you also get far right judges with lifetime appointments. Perhaps even another on the Supreme Court. A border wall. An increase of concentration camps near the border. Federal bans on gender affirming care. Bathroom laws. Anti-drag laws. Anti-choice will probably get codified. Any public health emergency will not be taken seriously and the elderly and disabled will die needlessly. Public schools will continue to get worse. Books will continue to be banned. Don't say gay laws. Don't say trans laws. School prayer. More tax cuts for the rich. The wage gap increases. Cost of living increases. Cost of healthcare increases. Voting restrictions. Voter ID laws. Gerrymandering. They could poison our elections to the point no progressive candidate would ever have a chance for not just the presidency, but also US Congress.

Put simply, if you are truly trying to help Palestine, how do you feel not voting for Biden accomplishes that?

[qqueenofhades]

Hi! This question has been noodling in my head for a few weeks, and I’ve been really curious to hear your opinion. I’ve appreciated your very thoughtful commentary on the ways the online left in particular have hurt the real and concerted efforts that have been made to navigate through the Gaza war in support of Palestine. I’ve seen a lot of outrage online about Biden bypassing congress in order to make another emergency weapons sale to Israel, which does indeed read as counter to helping to the Palestinians facing endless and indiscriminate violence. I understand that you might not want to answer this ask, because the work that you already do in your life offline and the work that you do here on tumblr to respond to and explain these issues is exhausting enough. Thanks so much for your time and your thoughtful contributions! It’s always really helped me remember to slow down and think critically about the media I consume.

Because you have asked this thoughtfully and in good faith, I will return the favor and give you a careful and extensive answer to the best of my ability. However, obligatory top-of-post disclaimer that I will disable reblogs at the first hint of any wankery in the notes and I will not answer any follow-ups or secondary asks at this time (unless I decide to do so, but I engage with this topic sparingly, judiciously, and only in small doses, so don't count on it).

First, let me say that the moment, I disagree with substantial portions of how Biden is handling the two main foreign-policy crises (Ukraine and Gaza). In regard to Ukraine, I think he's backed off, taken his foot off the gas, and otherwise given Republicans ammunition to keep delaying or watering down a new aid bill, is refusing to disburse military aid packages from the $4 billion of funding remaining that was previously approved by Congress, hasn't sent long-range ATACMS and other critical military hardware that might bring the war to an end sooner, and is not (as of the moment, though recent reporting suggests this might change) pushing hard enough for frozen Russian assets to be transferred to Ukraine for military and/or humanitarian financial assistance. However, I am also aware (unlike, it seems, much of the left-leaning internet) that I am basing these judgments only on my personal impressions, on what is reported (or not reported) in the media (which has plenty of its own problems) and otherwise what is formed in my role as an ordinary American citizen without any kind of special, classified, high-level, or government access. I know nothing more than any of you, and I also know that a lot of what goes on behind closed doors does not appear on Political Twitter and/or the Washington Post or the Guardian or Daily Kos or whatever other aggregate sources of information I or any left-leaning person typically consumes. So it's highly possible (and this is my cautious academic instinct speaking) that I do not, in fact, have a full picture of events. There are also contributing factors that Biden cannot simply handwave aside, even if he did, say, dip back into the $4 billion pot in the meantime. Congress will need to pass a new funding bill for Ukraine aid and the MAGA Republicans have been enthusiastically blocking it to the point where Putin's cronies on Russian state TV praise them effusively for it. We all know about the Republicans and Russia's mutual love affair. So.

The same goes for Gaza, and even more because we have already had reporting about how the Biden administration is walking a behind-the-scenes tightrope in a number of seemingly impossible tasks: keeping the war from spreading to a larger theater, pressuring Netanyahu to dial down, y'know, the rampant genocide (when Netanyahu notoriously doesn't like Biden, was very close with Trump, and would be happy to keep the war going in order to boost Trump's chances of being re-elected and save Netanyahu himself from his own criminal prosecutions), and pursuing a complex policy toward the state of Israel that does not follow the antisemitic Western Online Left's fever dream of "Israel suddenly disappears overnight and falls into the ocean and all Jews die or disappear." We have had multiple credibly sourced reports about this. Blinken is back in the Middle East right now trying to keep the war from spreading. The US under Biden has criticized Israel's essentially empty policy document for post-war Gaza as not being remotely feasible (because it's so vague) and gone so far as to voice support for a two-state solution with Palestinian self-determination (which is itself quite radically different from previous administrations). However, they have also vetoed UN ceasefire resolutions and other essentially meaningless political theater (the UN as a whole has been ruthlessly exposed in the last few years for being completely useless) that are easy to gin up outrage about, and that's what the internet focuses on, rather than any of the other complicated actions taking place.

All of this is to say that no, in fact, I don't blindly support everything the Biden administration is doing in regard to either Ukraine or Israel right now, but I actually have a sense of real-world perspective about it and understand that there are certain immutable realities that we are working with and which will not be erased by some absolute jackasses yelling at Biden in a historically black church at the commemoration of an anti-black terrorist attack. Likewise, as I've said it before and I'll say it again, and as plenty of other people have noticed and pointed out, the Western left is using this as an orgy of pseudo-revolutionary fervor that focuses on using Hamas as a proxy for their own fantasies of violent uprising against their own governments. Because while yes, anti-zionism and antisemitism are two distinct things and represent different aims and goals, it's become more or less irrelevant in allegedly pro-Palestine Western leftist spaces. It's just increasingly rabid, accelerationist, and nihilistic antisemitism all the time, or the obvious usage of "Zionist" to mean "Jew." It's not good. There is no concept of actual restorative justice for Palestinians or other people, such as Ukrainians, Syrians, Uyghurs, Taiwanese, etc, either undergoing genocide or facing the threat of it, because Western leftists have latched onto this cause solely as a stick to beat the Democratic Party with and have no actual moral interest or concern in stopping genocide elsewhere in the world or repudiating it as a method overall. They just want the state of Israel (which they characterize as a "proxy state for white western colonialism" despite the many, many things historically, religiously, and politically wrong with that statement, because it means it now Contains the Right Buzzwords to Oppose It) to be destroyed altogether in the name of "opposing colonialism," but it really seems to be all about opposing Jews. Hmm.

Simply put, Biden is not ever going to pursue a policy of "let's totally abandon Israel tomorrow, never sell it any weapons or allow it to defend its own civilians, and agree that Hamas is actually a good representation or advocate for the Palestinian people" in the way a number of Western Online Leftists seem to think he should do. There is still the fact that Israeli civilians do exist and that Hamas has continued to launch missiles at them daily, inconvenient as that fact might be for the Hamas fanboys (and fangirls) who now populate much of what passes for Western leftist discourse spaces. (Either that or they don't care, because in their view, Israeli civilians are fully acceptable collateral damage by virtue of simply living in Israel in the first place, which -- yikes. Fucking yikes. That is all.) The number of people professing to be lifelong leftists who are Just Shocked at all the antisemitism, or thinking that any and all antisemitism is just artificially introduced into leftist spaces by bad-faith right-wing/Nazi psyops either has not spent any actual time around leftists, or (more likely) simply does not listen to what they openly say. The antisemitism is virulent, constant, and only getting worse. On the most basic level, regardless of the other difficulties around the founding of Israel as a state in 1948 and the fact that doing so on some of the most bitterly religiously, politically, ethnically, and culturally contested territory in the world for over two thousand years was always going to be a massive clusterfuck, the fact of its immediate post-Holocaust creation simply cannot be ignored the way many Online Leftists do. Israel exists because of the worst antisemitic mass murder in recorded history (and that's a high bar). That fact must be incorporated into any actual discussions about its right either to exist or to protect its own civilians. But this gets turned into "Israel exists only as a puppet state of white western colonialists" which is just bad on so, so many levels.

The collective Western Online Leftist feeling seems to be that Hamas are innocent and wronged freedom fighters who are begging for a ceasefire and the cruel Israelis aren't granting them one. This is not true. Hamas has rejected multiple ceasefire opportunities, and continued to launch missiles and retaliatory attacks, because they are terrorists and they do not want or represent any serious opportunity to negotiate in the framework of western liberal democracy. They are treated as helpless woobified blorbos by much of the Western leftist-leaning internet. They are not. In that case, Biden bypassing Congress to sell Israel weapons (which was just something like 100 million of artillery shells, which is not nothing but still not a huge systematic thing like, say, Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal) is not great. I do not support anything Israel is doing to Gaza. It is abhorrent. However, there are reasons for Biden to provide some limited amount of weapons to Israel without congressional approval that do not automatically and mindlessly equate to BIDEN SUPPORTS TOTAL GENOCIDE IN GAZA!!!!!!1 Especially when as I've said, the Online Leftists only care about stopping genocide when it fits their political self-righteousness, and absolutely not at all the rest of the time.

This is representative of the fact that Western Online Leftism has now completed its all-out descent into blind Noam Chomskyism. Chomsky has never met a "leftist" or "anti-Western" genocide he couldn't deny, excuse, or openly cheerlead (going all the way back to the 1970s and Pol Pot/the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and going up to the minute with Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palestine). Noam Chomsky is the leftist Henry Kissinger. His ethics and morals are equally abhorrent, he's just as willing to justify total genocide in the name of advancing his preferred political ideology, and while there were (justifiably) celebrations and gloating memes across Tumblr when Kissinger finally bit the dust, Chomsky's beliefs are replicated with slavish adoration in many other Tumblr spaces and spread in some form or another to the rest of the website, which now takes them as leftist gospel (and let's not even talk about Twitter). This represents my absolute frustration with the fact that Western Online Leftism has devolved to such a degraded, mindless, useless, and malevolent level that "cheerlead for any anti-western/Leftist TM terrorist group or state" is taken to be the be-all and end-all of their moral philosophy. Someone remarked that ISIS peaked too early; if they were still at the height of their powers today, they would have a legion of devoted white so-called progressive Twitter users shilling earnestly and angrily for them, and Christ, isn't that the fucking truth.

I know we live in a hard, frightening, complex, and difficult world, and it's hard to sort out what our moral responsibility and action should be at any given time, especially since the answer is always so frustratingly partial and incomplete. Nobody of basic good sense and decency wants to see Gaza leveled while the Israeli state continues to apply a number of violently cruel collective punishments even outside the actual daily bombing of civilians. But for the love of god, let's get rid of the idea that the continued mindless violence doesn't benefit Hamas (because it does; unsurprisingly, sympathy for their cause has soared in Gaza) as much as it does Israel, or that Hamas is some kind of benevolent peacemaker that is being thwarted by the cruel imperialist US/West. And going back to the incident that prompted you to send me this ask: white leftists have often and repeatedly demonstrated their withering disdain for black people, Democratic voters, "mainstream" Americans, and anyone else doesn't buy into the twisted tankie fantasy land where getting rid of Biden would somehow be a massive coup for social justice (by getting Trump, now openly announcing at every turn that he will be a dictator, back into office! Very praxis, much justice. Wow.)

In short: if you, a white person, stand up in Mother Emanuel AME -- one of the most sacred sites for Black churchgoers, who are indeed often heavily Democratic voters -- in the middle of a remembrance service for victims of white supremacist terrorism, after the Black pastor has asked you not to protest inside the church out of respect for the Black community coming together to relive its trauma -- just so you can heckle Biden and feel good about yourself, then Jesus Christ. You don't care about restorative justice for people of color, or literally any justice at all, much less "stopping genocide." You just want to use them as props for your Chomsky cosplay revolutionary fantasies and your sense of self-righteous superiority over literally everyone else, regardless of the real-world consequences. So I have no hesitation whatsoever in telling those people to get fucked. Often and repeatedly.

[hotvintagepoll]

Propaganda

Sylvia Sidney (Thirty Day Princess, Merrily We Go To Hell, One Third of a Nation)—She is a noted needlework and pug enthusiast. So, you just know, if tumblr had been a thing in 1930, her entire blog would've been cute dog pics and beautiful watercolours that have 'satin stitch on silk' in tiny writing at the bottom and make you rethink everything you thought you knew about fibre crafts. Which is HOT.

Loretta Young (The Farmer’s Daughter, The Stranger, Love is News)— Her cheekbones!! Her lips!! Her big eyes and small nose and not quite classical features!! The planes of her face hypnotize me and her smile clears my mind of anything else. She’s an interesting beauty, not a standard one, almost in a Mads Mikkelsen type way (I repeat: cheekbones). Also I’m begging people to watch The Farmer’s Daughter, a charming rom com where my babygirl Joseph Cotten falls through the ice while skating because he got distracted by how pretty she was, and where Loretta puts on a 40s-bad Swedish accent and runs for Congress! Girlboss!

This is round 1 of the tournament. All other polls in this bracket can be found here. Please reblog with further support of your beloved hot sexy vintage woman.

[additional propaganda submitted under the cut]

Sylvia Sidney:

I watched this woman in Sabotage and my entire life became dedicated to watching everything my short queen is in. She's my Amanda Seyfried of the 1930's and even though people probably know her only from Beetlejuice I am begging for people to just look at her.

My generation knows her from Beetlejuice and Mars Attacks, but in the 1930s she was a knockout leading lady. She’s Jewish, good representation, and in the 80s supported AIDS research, so we know she’s a good egg.

Loretta Young:

[beardedmrbean]

Black gun owners are helping to shape the gun debate in Massachusetts, with Boston-area legislators expressing surprise and maybe a little frustration over the fact that many of their constituents are telling them to back down from their efforts to add more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. 

Bostonians, who have long faced tough hurdles to secure gun licenses compared to suburban peers, are pressing state lawmakers to ease those restrictions as new gun reform legislation advances on Beacon Hill this season. And, increasingly, the calls on behalf of expanding Second Amendment rights are coming from men and women of color who live in Dorchester and Mattapan. State Rep. Russell Holmes, who represents parts of both neighborhoods, says he is paying attention to their calls. “It’s a legal right they are asking for and I need to open my eyes to the fact that folks in my community feel their Second Amendment rights are being infringed upon,” said Holmes, who said he’s approached everywhere – even at church – about expanding gun rights. His colleague in the Fifth Suffolk district, Rep. Chris Worrell, said he’s been fielding similar calls from constituents in other parts of Dorchester and Roxbury that he represents. “Am I a gun person? No,” said Worrell. “I’m not a gun guy and don’t own a gun but there are a lot of people here in the neighborhood who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights and obtain a license and have not been able to.”

On today's Bearing Arms Cam & Co, newly-elected GOP committeewoman Dr. Elizabeth Hinds-Ferrick and Massachusetts firearms instructor Nolan Howard declared that it's getting harder for Democrats to ignore the pro-2A sentiment coming from a growing number of their constituents.

"Everyone's seeing what's going on around them. We've got immigrants coming in, and they're taking care of them instead of us, and a lot of people are feeling a little uneasy and thinking it's time to go get their license," Howard revealed, adding that he does see something of a generation split on the issue. 

"A lot of the older generation doesn't like it, including in my family, but I forced my sister to make my class. I told her 'hey, just get the license. You don't even need to get a gun right now, just get a license. God forbid something happens, you won't have to wait. You can just go to an FFL, wait for the background check, and there you go." 

Dr. Hinds-Ferrick is among the growing number of Bostonians who are applying for her LTC, which is required to both possess a gun in the home and carry in public. 

"My oldest son signed up the whole family," she shared. "We all went to the course on a Sunday. It's time for all of us to be responsible gun owners and get our license so we can protect ourselves and exercise our Second Amendment rights." 

 Hinds-Ferrick is hoping to use the Second Amendment as a means of Republican outreach to people of color, but both she and Nolan said they'd be thrilled to see Democrats embrace the right to keep and bear arms. They just don't see it happening anytime soon. 

"If you look at what's happening in Congress and around the country," Hinds-Ferrick said, "they're blaming the gun and not the person that is using the gun. The gun is an inanimate object, but they're trying to change the law to away our Second Amendment rights." 

Meanwhile, Hinds-Ferrick, Howard, and other Second Amendment supporters are trying to change the political environment in Massachusetts, and thanks to their efforts, Democrats are starting to feel the heat from their constituents. 

For lawmakers like Holmes, the incoming calls are ones he cannot ignore. “It’s an unusual request for me,” Holmes admits. “I’m saying, ‘When did this happen in the Black community because I have gun violence all up and down Blue Hill Avenue in my district.’ But these are friends and regular, real people, not crazy gun enthusiasts but real people that I know who say this is something they want to do…I’m not happy about it but I have to open my eyes to it.”

It remains to be seen if Holmes and other Democratic lawmakers will actually listen to what their constituents are saying. A conference committee is still working behind closed doors to craft a compromise gun control bill, and we have no idea when they'll have a draft that will be released to the public or what the bill will look like when it finally emerges from the committee room. 

Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Dr. Elizabeth Hinds-Ferrick and Nolan Howard in the video window below. I'm thrilled they could both join the show today, and I'm encouraged by their activism and outreach in one of the most hostile environments for our Second Amendment rights. Massachusetts has a long way to go before it's even close to truly recognizing the fundamental importance of our right to keep and bear arms, but Howard and Hinds-Ferrick are helping to move the needle in the right direction. 

[rhondafromhr]

Finished the second chapter of my ‘nerds corruption au’ story!

I have way too much free time right now and I’m also having way too much fun writing this so here’s another chapter, this idea has me in an absolute chokehold.

Link to Chapter 1: https://www.tumblr.com/rhondafromhr/738099850581835776/i-ended-up-writing-it-after-all-ill-probably

“We’re Gonna Become the Bullies”

Chapter 2: They’re Walking a Very Fine Line

Paul’s been Richie’s guardian for going on four years now and in that time, Richie’s never given him much of a reason to worry. He’s never been sent to the principal’s office or the police station, he keeps his grades up, he chose the math club over the smoke club and the most rebellious thing he ever does is stay up late on a school night watching anime. More importantly, he tells Paul everything - when he gets bullied at school, when he’s struggling with a class, when he has a fight with Ruth (Oh God, Paul remembers, he promised they’ll go see The Barbecue Monologues to show her their support. Ugh. He does not like musicals). If he’s going to be out late, he always texts Paul to let him know where he is, what he’s doing and about when he thinks he‘ll be home.

At least he did until Friday night. He said he was going to Pete’s after school for a D&D session and he should be home around eleven. But then eleven o’clock rolled around and Richie didn’t appear, nor did a heads up that he was going to be late. Paul ignored the slight gnawing anxiety. There’s no reason to worry, he told himself, they probably just got really caught up in their game. From the few times Richie’s hosted D&D night at their place, he knows how intense they get with it.

But then it was a quarter past eleven and still no sign of him. He texted: hey, haven’t heard from you, everything okay? No answer. Ten more minutes passed and eventually he caved and called. Nothing. He tried two more times and still nothing. By eleven forty-five he was desperate enough to call Ted and ask if he’d heard anything from Peter. He hadn’t and he was none too pleased with Paul for interrupting his favorite pastime (“screwin’ around with another man’s wife”). Apparently, Ted had him on speaker, because Charlotte heard and she was much nicer about it. She told Paul they’d notify him if they heard anything and asked him to please let them know once Richie got home safe. Just when he was on the verge of a panic attack, he heard the lock clicking on the front door as Richie let himself in. By now it was almost two in the morning. Paul exhaled and the tension left his body. He’d never felt this relieved in his life. Obviously, Richie had some explaining to do, but at least he was here. At least Paul finally knew he was safe.

“Hi, Richie. Did something happen? Usually you at least shoot me a text if you’re going to be out late.” Something was definitely off. Richie’s clothes were disheveled and the way he rubbed his arm was subtly different from the way he usually does it - his hand rested on his shoulder rather than his forearm and he winced as if there was some physical pain he was trying to relieve. Did he get hurt? Why didn’t he call Paul for help if he got hurt?

“Oh, uh, sorry, Paul. We just got super into the campaign and I guess the time got away from us. Won’t happen again. I’m pretty tired now, I think I’m going to head to bed. Goodnight!” He rushed to his room before Paul could ask any follow-up questions.

“Goodnight, Richie,” Paul said with a sigh. He wasn’t convinced, but maybe Richie just needed time to open up about whatever actually happened. He always did eventually.

That night still weighs on Paul’s mind as he drives Richie to school Monday morning. Richie seems distracted, too. Without his usual enthusiastic rambling about the merits of subs versus dubs or why there should be a copy of the full Attack on Titan box set in the library of congress, the car feels eerily quiet. Paul turns on the radio to try and fill the silence, but the cheery, up-tempo song that comes on somehow creates an even weirder atmosphere. They finally pull up in front of the school and say their goodbyes.

Just as he’s about to take off, Paul notices a tall boy in a letterman jacket waving to Richie. Richie waves back and approaches him. Wait, isn’t that Max Jägerman? The kid that’s been bullying Richie and his friends for years? He watches as they walk towards the school entrance together. Why is Max being so friendly to him out of the blue? Is this the setup for some horrible, mean-spirited prank? Paul’s heart sinks, but there’s nothing he can do. He’ll just have to trust Richie’s judgment and be there for him if anything happens. He’s definitely going to Beanie’s on his lunch break today. He desperately needs a coffee and Emma will probably be happy to let him vent and maybe even provide some surprisingly thoughtful advice. Knowing her, she’ll welcome any distraction from her usual degrading job duties of making coffee, serving “cold, shitty pastries” and singing for tips.

“Hey, Richie! How was your weekend?” Max greets him enthusiastically. Huh, he’s been upgraded from Shitlips. Not only that, they’re on a first-name basis now. So they’re actually doing this. That night at the Waylon place wasn’t some weird fever dream.

“Uh, it was okay, I guess? My Uncle Paul didn’t seem too happy with me for staying out so late on Friday, but he didn’t, like, ground me or anything. Other than that I didn’t do much, just rewatched Attack on Titan again.” Friday was the weirdest, most stressful night of his life and he had no idea what to expect on Monday, so the comfort and familiarity was much needed.

“Oh, cool. My dad was pretty upset when I told him what happened, too.”

“That makes sense, you did almost die.”

“Yeah, he’s really pissed I didn’t. Wanted to collect the life insurance payout or whatever. You know how dads are,” Max says with a shrug. Richie actually doesn’t know how dads are, but he’s pretty sure that’s not normal.

“Oh, uh, sorry. That sucks.” What else can he say to something like that?

“Anyway, I gave Kyle and Jason the rundown over the weekend and told them to spread the word. Everyone should know by now that you and the rest of the group are not to be messed with and from now on they’ll be answering to all of us. And if anybody tries it you just let me know, it’s a swirly and a flick-it ticket for them. We’ll do it together. I have to teach you the proper form, anyway.”

Oh, right. That part of the deal. It’s not just being cool with Max Jägerman, it’s being “on his level” as he phrased it. Which means joining in on the bullying unless they can use whatever influence they now have to talk Max out of it. Grace did say she thought it was possible back at the Waylon place. Richie agreed at the time. Does he still believe that? Did he ever, or was he just trying to justify their decision? If they can even pull it off, it’s going to be a lot more complicated than just going “Hey, let’s not bully anyone!” and Max being like “Okay, sounds good!”

“Will do, Max, but uh, what if it’s somebody who doesn’t have nuts?” Richie asks. He may or may not be speaking from experience. Truthfully, flick-it tickets have never worked on him, but convincingly faking like they’re the most painful thing in the world has probably saved him from Max inflicting actual pain countless times. Ruth’s acting tips have been really helpful for that.

“Oh, good point! Two swirlies, then. Love your inclusive way of thinking!”

The bell rings, providing Richie with a convenient exit from this conversation.

“Oh, gotta get to honors English, see ya later!”

“Bye, Max.” He hurries to Physics, wondering how the hell Max is in honors English.

When he joins their usual group (plus Grace and Steph) at the lunch table, it seems like everyone else is reeling from the changed dynamic, too. At least Ruth is having a good time with it.

“She actually said hi to me!” Ruth says, her eyes lighting up “Then she told me my headgear is fire today! It was so hot, you could cut the sexual tension with a knife!” There’s only one person at school who still says things are fire unironically. Brenda must have gotten the memo.

“Isn’t she dating Kyle?” Pete points out “I know Max won’t let them, but clearly they’d just go behind his back, right?”

“Yeah,” Richie chimes in “If anything, sneaking around would make it hotter. ‘Forbidden fruit’ and all that.”

“Duh! Everyone knows that, watch some porn! But also, watch some romcoms - I’m the nerdy underdog, obviously she chooses me in the end.”

Before Grace can admonish Ruth for being so lewd or Stephanie can rant about the problematic tropes and implications of the romcom comment (the collective word count of her Twitter threads on the subject rivals War and Peace), Pete raises the question that’s been on all of their minds:

“Can we really be considered underdogs anymore?”

“I don’t know. The vibe is definitely different from before,” replies Richie “God, this morning was so weird. Max just walked up to me and started the most normal ass ‘how was your weekend?’ conversation ever. I mentioned anime and he didn’t even make fun of me, it was fucking surreal!”

“It’s definitely weird, but I have to admit it’s been kind of nice to be able to walk down the hallway without constantly watching my back,” Pete says “Brad Callahan called me Micro-Pete earlier. I told him to back off and he actually did!”

“He called you what?” Startled, they all look up to find Max looming over them at the end of their table. When did he get here? “I fuckin’ told him not to bother you guys, but it looks like my instructions were unclear. C’mon, Pete, let’s go find him. We’ll make sure there are no further misunderstandings.”

“What, like, beat him up? I don’t know, Max, he’s twice my size. And he did back off, maybe we let him off with a warning this time?” Pete protests weakly.

“It’s okay, dude, I’ll be right there with you! Nobody who knows what’s good for them is going to jump in to defend him, either, so it’ll be two against one. And I know pummeling people seems intimidating if you’ve never done it before, but I’ll show you the ropes. I bet you're stronger than you think you are!” Ignoring the subject matter, Pete has to admit Max gives a pretty solid pep talk. Now that they’re sort of friends, maybe Max will send some of that energy his way before the AP Physics exam.

“Okay,” Pete says, still uncertain, but also acutely aware that he’s not getting out of this one.

“Can I come with?” Stephanie asks “I’ve actually always wanted to slap Brad across his stupid, smug face, but this is the final straw. Nobody’s going to disrespect you like that on my watch.” Pete turns beet-red.

“Oh, awesome, three against one!” Max says “Let’s roll out!” Stephanie grabs Pete’s hand and the three take their leave. Max and Steph walk with a menacing, determined stride like predators stalking their prey. Pete trails behind them, a little more hesitant, but still follows.

“Slapping Brad in the face has always been one of my fantasies, too! Probably not in the same way, though,” Ruth says “I should’ve joined them! Life is but a series of missed opportunities.”

“Ruth,” Grace says “have you ever considered taking a vow of chastity? Resisting the temptation you’re feeling until you’re safely married could save your immortal soul.”

“No, of course not! Why would I do that now of all times? I’m not a repulsive loser anymore, somebody might finally touch me!” Ruth sighs dreamily. “I’m telling you guys, me and Brenda, there’s something there.”

“If you’re so worried about our immortal souls, why didn’t you try to stop them just now? I don’t spend my weekends at bible study, but I’m pretty sure wrath is a sin,” says Richie.

“Well, Brad has it coming. He’s always been a no good sinner. It’s not our wrath, it’s God’s wrath. They’re just carrying out His will.”

Richie’s surprised to find himself entertaining Grace’s point. She’s right about Brad, at least. He has always been kind of an asshole. He was picking on Pete earlier, too, and it certainly wasn’t the first time. Then there’s the whole “long-con” aspect of it all - once again, things aren’t going to change overnight. They all need to play along if they don’t want to lose their new status ruling Hatchetfield High by Max’s side. Maybe if the next target is less deserving than Brad, he can test the waters and try to get Max to lay off. For now, Richie will just head to his next class and try to make it through the rest of the school day without being roped into roughing somebody up.

[feministskeptic]

Cotton Ceiling Receipts

Trans activists misrepresent what the “cotton ceiling” is, so I decided to compile a list of descriptions given by pro-trans sources. There are lists compiling receipts from anonymous social media accounts (for example), but I haven’t seen lists compiling more reputable sources on it on it.

As I was putting this together, one thing that struck me was how important it is to distinguish between traditional homophobia, which pressures homosexual people be heterosexual, and a different type of homophobia which pressures homosexual people to be bisexual. Condemning a gay person for not experiencing opposite-sex attraction is homophobic; redefining “homosexuality” and “same-sex” to include attraction to the opposite sex so that you can claim to support homosexuality (but only as long as it also includes opposite-sex attraction) is homophobic.

I stopped at about 31 reputable sources and then about 9 of a more casual blogging variety. I’ve tried to limit my commentary on what I quote.

Cotton Ceiling From Reputable Sources

Article from Curve Magazine (2020) by a male trans person. Curve Magazine is a lesbian magazine dating back to 1991.

The term “cotton ceiling” has been viewed as quite the incendiary phrase. It was coined by porn actress and trans activist Drew DeVeaux in 2015. It’s been used to refer to the tendency by cisgender lesbians to outwardly include and support trans women, but draw the line at considering ever having sex with them.

[…]

The point of such discussion is not, EVER, to exhort anyone to have grudging sex without enthusiastic consent. The point of such discussion is to exhort folks to examine their inherent bigotry. We change, we grow, we learn through familiarity and exposure. We can challenge and re-examine our prejudices and fixed ideas.

Here a lesbian magazine exhorts lesbians that being friendly with male trans people isn’t sufficient, lesbians should “examine” and “change” their “inherent bigotry” (the absence of opposite sex attraction) to learn how to be both-sexes attracted (the correct orientation).

It pays lip service to consent (we would never want anyone to have unwanted sex!) while arguing that not wanting straight sex is bad and you should fix that about yourself. If you don’t want lesbians to have unwanted sex, then you should support and encourage them to double down and defend their boundaries when those boundaries are challenged or undermined—not instruct them that they have a responsibility to "grow” their boundaries.

The author also links to Riley Dennis’s “genital preferences are unfair discrimination” video, which appears further down this list.

Article from The TransAdvocate (2013) by a same-sex attracted woman. The TransAdvocate is an independent nonprofit that was selected by the US Library of Congress to be in its collection of LGBTQ+ writing in 2019.

The question of whether or not to include trans women in women’s sexuality-based events is old and tiresome, but it still comes up with some regularity. I recently responded to a discussion on this topic and I realized that it might be useful to post my thoughts here, as I don’t know that I’ve ever done so in full.

[…]

Assumption 9. The “cotton ceiling” is a way for trans women to bully cis women into having sex with them.

The idea of the “cotton ceiling” is intended to draw attention to how even in spaces that are politically and socially welcoming of trans women, transphobia often retains its influence on how we understand who is sexually desirable and who isn’t. It’s no different from other politicized criteria for desirability—people who are, for instance, fat or disabled are also often welcomed into queer women’s space but not seen as desirable compared to those hot slim, muscular, able-bodied sorts. This isn’t our fault—our entire culture tells us what’s sexy and what’s not, 24 hours a day, and that definition is terribly narrow. But it is really easy to forget how much influence advertising propaganda and social pressure can exert on what gets us wet and hard, and to let the mainstream’s terms dictate our desires.

It is possible to read the idea of the cotton ceiling as being about pressuring people to change who and what they desire. And that pressure can feel unwelcome. With that in mind, I would challenge those who feel it that way to look very carefully at the message that’s being delivered. Is it actually about you being told you need to go out and fuck people you’re not attracted to? Or is it about someone asking you to think about how much of your attractions are based on an underlying assumption of cissexism?

The author argues it’s a problem for women to be “welcoming” of male trans people while drawing the line at sleeping with them. She goes on to compare homosexuality to refusing to sleep with overweight people, arguing that lacking opposite-sex attraction is not a natural sexual orientation, it’s actually just a product of society’s prejudices:

“transphobia often retains its influence on how we understand who is sexually desirable”

Comparing people who aren’t attracted to the opposite sex to people who aren’t attracted to overweight people or disabled people to make homosexuality seem unnatural

“our entire culture tells us what’s sexy and what’s not”

“how much influence advertising propaganda and social pressure can exert on what gets us wet and hard”

“how much of your attractions are based on an underlying assumption of cissexism”

So: lesbians are brainwashed by society into being gay. Got it.

The kicker is when she compares the discomfort a homosexual woman feels from being shamed for being homosexual and from being pressured into being bisexual, to the discomfort a person with privilege feels when confronted with their privilege. It should suffice to say that lesbians don’t lightly come to the conclusion that they lack opposite sex attraction, and no lesbian benefits from being lectured about how she needs to reflect more and think more on her sexuality until she reaches the “correct” conclusion of opposite-sex attraction. By the time she comes out of the closet and is rejecting male trans people, she’s already reflected and thought on her sexuality.

This is trans-typical conversion therapy rhetoric, which a lesbian debunked well in this unconnected screenshot:

Because though the author tries to obscure it, there is a causal link between attraction and sexual relations, and when male trans people criticize lesbians for not being attracted to male trans people, they’re upset about lesbians rejecting sexual relations.

No matter how friendly, how "welcoming,” of male trans people a woman is, if that welcome doesn't extend into her bedroom, she’s a transphobe.

Article from PinkNews (2022). Wikipedia says PinkNews is a British LGBT news outlet founded in 2005.

The “cotton ceiling” is a concept coined by porn star and trans activist Drew DeVeaux, and describes the inherent prejudice that many cisgender lesbians have against trans women, reducing them to their genitals, even if they are outwardly accepting. It is not about an individual’s sexual decisions, which should only ever be made freely and with full, enthusiastic consent.

It’s pointless to include a disclaimer about consent when you’ve just argued it’s not enough for lesbians to be “outwardly accepting,” that lesbians HAVE to be open to sleeping with male trans people in order to truly respect them. The “cotton ceiling” is the transgender version of men complaining about being friendzoned by lesbians.

Scholarly book Does anyone have the right to sex? (2018) by Amia Srinivasan, London Review of Books

The difficulties I have been discussing are currently posed in the most vexed form within feminism by the experience of trans women. Trans women often face sexual exclusion from lesbian cis women who at the same time claim to take them seriously as women. This phenomenon was named the ‘cotton ceiling’ – ‘cotton’ as in underwear – by the trans porn actress and activist Drew DeVeaux. The phenomenon is real, but, as many trans women have noted, the phrase itself is unfortunate. While the ‘glass ceiling’ implies the violation of a woman���s right to advance on the basis of her work, the ‘cotton ceiling’ describes a lack of access to what no one is obligated to give (though DeVeaux has since claimed that the ‘cotton’ refers to the trans woman’s underwear, not the underwear of the cis lesbian who doesn’t want to have sex with her). Yet simply to say to a trans woman, or a disabled woman, or an Asian man, ‘No one is required to have sex with you,’ is to skate over something crucial. There is no entitlement to sex, and everyone is entitled to want what they want, but personal preferences – no dicks, no fems, no fats, no blacks, no arabs, no rice no spice, masc-for-masc – are never just personal.

[…]

…a feminism that totally abjures the political critique of desire is a feminism with little to say about the injustices of exclusion and misrecognition suffered by the women who arguably need feminism the most.

Another author who argues lesbians need to be willing to have sex with male trans people in order to take them seriously as women. Having sex with someone is not evidence you respect them “as women” or otherwise, and refusing sex with someone is not evidence you disrespect them.

Notice that the author’s compared homosexuality to refusing to sleep with disabled people or people of certain races. The goal of the comparison is to argue homosexuality is an unnatural orientation: nobody is biologically wired to be exclusively attracted to people of certain ability or skin color the way gay people are biologically wired to experience exclusively same-sex attraction. It’s not the same thing, and it’s homophobic (and scientifically inaccurate) to argue homosexuality is unnatural.

Also notice that she listed “no dicks” as if it’s analogous to “no blacks.” Rejecting sexual relations with someone because he has a penis is not remotely the same as rejecting someone for their skin color.

During court case, British lawyer compares cotton ceiling workshop to racially integrating South Africa after Apartheid (2021)

During the Allison Bailey trial, a lawyer from the law group Garden Court Chambers compared Planned Parenthood’s cotton ceiling workshop to South Africa’s workshops to racially integrate in order to argue Planned Parenthood’s workshop was good. This lawyer compared lesbians who won’t let male trans people get in their pants to white supremacists enforcing society-wide apartheid.

Here is a more detailed description of this moment in the trial.

If you’ve never read about the OG Planned Parenthood workshop (2012) by Morgan Page and Sarah Hobbs in Toronto…

Planned Parenthood gives a full-throated defense for hosting a workshop called “Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: Breaking Down Sexual Barriers for Queer Trans Women,” stating that trans women “are denied full participation in queer women’s communities.” But what do they mean by “full participation”? It was a workshop by male trans people upset that they couldn’t get laid with lesbians and bisexual women.

That passive construction, “trans women are denied full participation,” is a euphemism for sexual relations. When Planned Parenthood says “we strongly stand behind queer trans women’ right to participate as full members of LGBTQ communities,” the ~right to participation~ they reference is sexual relations with women who don’t want to sleep with them (if these women wanted to sleep with them, there would be no workshop).

No cookie-cutter disclaimer about oooh consent is so important can change the fact that the core principle underlying this workshop (and the cotton ceiling in general) was that female homosexuality is unfair and oppressive to the male sex.

Planned Parenthood also couldn’t help but imply that the reason lesbians aren’t interested in male trans people is because of how “transphobia and transmisogyny impact sexual desire.” They do not view lesbians’ rejection of male trans people as a natural consequence of their natural sexual orientation. They view lesbians’ homosexuality as a “sexual barrier” to “inclusion” that should be overcome.

Tweets from Drew DeVeaux, male trans person.

I’ve included him in the “reputable” sources section because DeVeaux is widely credited with coining the term “cotton ceiling,” so what he says about it has particular weight.

Excerpt from 2014 speech

These threads are read from the bottom up:

Thread 2:

Thread 3:

Email from Morgan Page (2012), who organized the Planned Parenthood workshop and is currently employed by the British LGBT organization Stonewall (as far as I know)

Article in AutoStraddle (2013) by a male trans person. AutoStraddle is a lesbian publication.

I have written previously about some of the alienation I have experienced as a trans woman dating in the queer women’s community. Now, I want to emphasize here again that no one is obligated to touch a woman’s penis if they aren’t into that. However it’s also important to emphasize:

1) Not every trans woman has a penis. 2) No general means exist to distinguish trans women from cis women.

The implications of these two points together are that statements such as “I am attracted to cis women but not trans women” simply do not make sense and are rooted in social prejudice.

(As a side comment, before moving on let me briefly address something that appears in the previous piece that I linked above. My article from about a year ago contains a reference to the concept of the so-called “cotton ceiling,” which deserves a brief comment here. While several trans woman-hating “radical feminists” have intentionally misconstrued this concept in rather bizarre ways, there are also a few trans people who have made statements in relation to this idea that I think are problematic. Hence, after having some time to reflect on the previous debates about this I have come to the conclusion that the “cotton ceiling” should be considered an unhelpful concept for this type of discussion and should be set aside by trans activists moving forward.)

Sexual attraction is heavily dependent on being compatible in the bedroom. For example: remember a time where you were interested in someone, got with them, it was bad, and you lost all attraction.

Gay people are incompatible in the bedroom with the opposite sex. They might think opposite-sex trans people look good and fantasize about what the bedroom might be like if they were same-sex, but that sexual attraction evaporates when you realize real life sex with this person would suck. Because of your aforementioned incompatibility with the opposite sex.

Notice he specifically suggests strategically setting aside the term cotton ceiling while continuing the same homophobic tripe, so, changing the dressing without changing the content. The term cotton ceiling is unhelpful to the cause of getting more lesbians to learn opposite sex attraction.

I address the “you don’t know who’s trans so how can you be attracted to only women” argument further under the Katy Montgomerie tweets.

A second article from TransAdvocate (2014)

If a small group wanted to talk about how ableism affected cultural notions of beauty and/or desirability, would feminist circles tolerate TERFs going on a yearlong campaign, claiming that those who aren’t able-bodied want to force lesbians to have sex with them?

In a culture that devalues and oppresses trans people, why is it not appropriate to discuss how these cisnormative beauty standards impact notions of desirability, how these biases relate to the fetishization of trans people and how all of this impacts the perception of trans people in queer spaces?

The main point of this article is that the cotton ceiling is a conspiracy cooked up by transphobes: male trans people never promote homophobia towards lesbians and anyone who says so is either stupid or scheming. This article is soundly debunked by looking at this list, or looking at any of the collections of social media receipts (for example), or just plain looking at what the article eventually settles on for the definition of the cotton ceiling (seen above: defining homosexuality as “cisnormative beauty standards” 🤔 gee, what cisnormative beauty standards could trick lesbians into finding the opposite sex undesirable? What cisnormative beauty standards could brainwash lesbians into finding only their same sex attractive?).

It’s written almost entirely using rhetorical questions in order to avoid taking responsibility for anything it proposes.

This article also contains rude and profane receipts from radfems to try to make the fuss about those nasty women who aren’t being good women, instead of tackling the homophobic rape culture inherent in insisting that it’s oppressive and abusive for female homosexuality to draw a boundary excluding the male sex (and for female homosexuality to have a name to use to describe that boundary).

Article from QueerFeminism.com (2012) by a bisexual female trans person. This article was endorsed by an MSNBC journalist (homosexual male trans person) who was recently nominated by GLAAD for an award. It was also linked in the Curve Magazine article cited first on this list.

The blogosphere is fired up over the cotton ceiling today, a term porn actress Drew DeVaux and other queer trans women are using to challenge cis lesbians’ tendency to support trans causes generally but draw the line at sleeping with trans women or including trans lesbians in their sexual communities.

[…]

The narcissism in the radfem community is somewhat hilarious.  Why would a trans woman WANT to sleep with you?  How boring it must be to have sex with someone who reduces your body, your sexual creativity, and your capacity to a penis.

[…]

Radfems, you’re not just missing out on great sex.  You’re confused about what it means to be a lesbian, or a woman.  I don’t care what your physical preferences are or what gender identity you prefer. I do care that you confuse those two things, and thereby insult trans women.  I care that you don’t bother to interrogate the origins of your phallus-based distaste for trans women, and think about whether it’s actually a dislike of the organ that’s happening here or whether transphobia and a refusal to view trans women as women is involved.  I care that you assume describing yourself as a lesbian tells others that you prefer what you call a pussy, as if everyone has the same definition of lesbian, woman, or pussy.

THAT is privilege.  Assuming that you speak the same language, rather than consensually sharing vocabulary.  Using lesbian as a proxy term that tells a whole group of women that they are not real, and not seeing anything wrong with that.  I find your appropriation of the language of oppression disgusting.

Another author who helpfully specifies that the cotton ceiling is about “lesbians’ tendency to support trans causes generally but draw the line at sleeping with trans women.” As I said earlier, no matter how welcoming of male trans people lesbians are, if that welcome doesn’t extend into the bedroom, it’s not enough.

The author here spends a good portion of the post writing about how a lack of willingness to engage in opposite-sex relations makes a person’s sex life deficient. She contradicts herself a couple times—she makes an unusually sincere-sounding disclaimer at the beginning about how not wanting to touch a penis is a valid sexual “preference,” and later says she doesn’t care what women’s “physical preferences” are, but also she mocks women who don’t want to have sexual relations with the opposite sex and says she hopes women come to feel shame for not “examining” their disinterest in sexual relations with the opposite sex.

My impression reading it was that since sexual relations don’t need to involve touching your partner’s penis, the author believes that even if you have an aversion to touching penises, that’s not a “good enough” reason to refuse sex with male trans people because sexual relations doesn’t necessitate penis contact. In the end, as we all know, there is no “good enough” reason for lesbians to lack interest in the opposite sex.

Blog post (2012) by Roz Kaveney, a male trans writer with his own Wikipedia page. He has 22.8K twitter followers. I wasn’t going to include him, but he’s cited by the next source, so here’s the full quote:

Essentially, the Cotton Ceiling - with reference to knickers - is the term parts of the trans community have inventively adopted for the way that, however theoretically accepting of trans people a lot of progressives may be, when it comes to actually having sex with us, they vote with their ...um...feet.

This is not - to jump straight in and answer a crude debating point that has been made by the usual 'radfem' suspects - a matter of the trans community demanding access to cis people's vulnerable and reluctant bodies. It's a matter of asking the question 'how can you say you accept us and still have - as many people do - a blanket assumption that you would never ever sleep with someone trans?' I say 'people' in that sentence because the assumptions that create the cotton ceiling are not peculiar to cis, or if you prefer 'non-trans', people. It's an issue to do with internalised transphobia as well, and something that a lot of trans people have to face up to in themselves. I've not always been as good on this as I might have been.

[…]

So, in the end, my substantive point is this - the cotton ceiling exists and it's an issue for all trans people, women, men and non-binary. It's a matter of transpobia, including internalized transphobia. Given the fact that access to surgery or even HRT is already in the US, and may become in the UK, an economic issue and quite often a racial one too.

To pretend the cotton ceiling does not exist is to deny an important component in transphobia.

Wanting to bang people is respect and not wanting to bang people is an important component of disrespect! Stop disrespecting us, which means, stop being so gay and start banging us!

Notice he employs the common conflation between using “trans” as a euphemism for a certain sex (typically, the male sex, such as by accusing feminists of being “trans-exclusive” if they include female trans people but not male trans people) with the use of trans to describe trans people of both sexes.

Kaveney and DeVeaux were both cited by the scholarly book Routledge Companion to Media, Sex and Sexuality (2017)

A major step forward came when Drew Deveaux, a model and porn actress, won the Feminist Porn Awards ‘Heartthrob of 2011’. Deveaux, an androgynous trans woman from Toronto, writes that ‘Through performing in porn, I’ve been able to take the world’s fucked up notions about trans women and fuck them into blissful oblivion’ (Deveaux, 2010). She nevertheless experienced feeling isolated in queer sex culture as a trans woman with a vagina. In 2012 she coined the term ‘the cotton ceiling’ to describe the feeling of being invisible as a sexual, queer woman. The cotton ceiling, like the glass ceiling for women in the workplace, is a barrier that limits access to power, recognition and respect. It refers literally to the panties of (cisgender) dykes, suggesting a social barrier to being recognised in queer sex cultures by cisdykes. As trans writer and activist Roz Kaveney sees it, this obstacle is present because, ‘however theoretically accepting of trans people a lot of progressives may be, when it comes to actually having sex with us, they vote with their … um … feet’ (2012).

The cotton ceiling … is a barrier that limits access to power, recognition, and respect. Nothing rape culture about that.

From the scholarly conference NWSA Feminist Transgressions: Too Damn Straight to Kick It with a Science Fiction Girlfriend: Dark Angel as a Symptom of the Feminist and LGBTQ Marginalization of Translesbianism (2014)

The television series Dark Angel is widely read as a cultural artifact of third-wave feminism. In the series, a cislesbian befriends a trans* heterosexual woman but derisively rejects a translesbian who sexually propositions her. This representation invokes feminist dialogue about translesbianism, such as the heated debate about whether the combination of ciswomen’s social acceptance and sexual rejection of transwomen constitutes a “cotton ceiling.” This paper argues that Dark Angel’s representation of trans lesbianism is symptomatic of the broader marginalization of the intersection of trans* identity and lesbianism within feminist and LGBTQ communities.

I couldn’t find more quotes from this source, but considering its argument is that “trans lesbians are marginalized by the LGBTQ community” I think we can safely conclude it comes down on the male sexual rights override female homosexuality side.

From the scholarly book Lesbian Feminism: Essays Opposing Global Heteropatriarchies (2019)

The sexuality of trans women is being policed to such a degree that any conversation that seeks to investigate their place in lesbian communities is twisted into an unpleasant caricature, unrecognizable as mature discourse. I’d like to think it would not be necessary for me to utterly condemn any form of sexual coercion between individuals based on any form of ideology whatsoever, but hey, this might be on the internet – and where the ‘cotton ceiling’ is concerned, woe betide anyone who enters the conversation who doesn’t want to be accused of being rapey’.

[…]

Fear is being used to convince us that the progression of trans rights threaten our safety. We are familiar with the old trope, of painting the ‘enemy’ as a threat of sexual violence against women – it is used to justify war, it is used to justify racism and it is being used here to justify transphobia.

The author compares lesbians who speak up against the pressure to “learn” opposite sex attraction to people who propagate racism to justify war. She avoids defining the cotton ceiling explicitly and just endorses the TransAdvocate article proclaiming that there is a conspiracy among lesbians to slander male trans people.

Excerpt from essay from scholarly book Feminist Perspectives on Orange Is The New Black (alternative link) (2016)

We can think of this as an example of what trans activist and porn star Drew DeVeaux has termed the “cotton ceiling.” Blogger and National Center for Transgender Equality staffer Natalie Reed (2012) provides a good synopsis of the term, writing that the “cotton ceiling” has to do with how trans women are perceived and represented. For example, trans men are often openly regarded as being sexy and hot within queer communities, being the subject of things like calendars and pin-ups and erotica. Trans women, on the other hand, are almost never permitted acknowledgment or representation in such communities as sexual beings. We carry a sort of image of being stuffy, boring, slightly icky, and ultimately eunuch-like things. We’re allowed into the parties, but we sit quiet and lonely in the corner. This ends up being a problem not in that we’re desperately eager to be sexually objectified (we get enough of that from the straight cis male world), but that this act of conceptualizing us as de-sexed and unfuckable is directly attached to larger systems of oppression, dehumanization and invalidation we face.

The “cotton ceiling”—referring to cotton underwear—is a way of shorthanding the phenomenon of desexualizing transwomen in queer spaces.

He’s complaining that lesbians will buy sexy calendars of female trans people but not male trans people because lesbians consider male trans people “unfuckable” because larger systems of oppression dehumanization invalidation. Not because of homosexuality? Could a natural lack of opposite-sex attraction be a significant variable here?

I’ve never seen Orange is the New Black, so I can’t really evaluate the analysis the author presents. But the author talks about how the trans character’s wife begged him not to get a penile inversion, because his wife is no longer sexually interested in him afterwards. The author also complains that the writers didn’t give the trans character any “lesbian” crushes/affairs, remaining loyal to his wife, and says that proves the bigotry of the writers.

I give the full quote from Natalie Reed further down the list.

Article from Hunger (2019), a fashion and culture magazine with 227K followers on instagram

As you may or may not know, lesbians have gathered a bit of a bad reputation in recent years. We’ve got TERFs uniting under the “lesbian” banner to hijack London Pride with their messed-up views; unchecked biphobia running rampant in our dating circles and convoluted in-fighting around the concept that butch people supposedly possess “masculine privilege” (btw, not a thing). As lesbianism increasingly becomes associated with transphobia and the “cotton ceiling” (the romantic and sexual exclusion of trans women and transfeminine people from lesbian circles) it’s a time when many of us are identifying with the wider, more inclusive “queer”.

Lesbians are so un-inclusive! Why should they have sexual boundaries against the opposite sex?

Cotton Ceiling By Any Other Name

As it dawns on trans rights activists what a sticky corner they’ve backed themselves into, they sometimes talk about the cotton ceiling without using the searchable term “cotton ceiling.” Here are some examples from reputable sources.

Quote from Stonewall CEO Nancy Kelley to the BBC (2021)

Kelley gave this quote to BBC when they asked her for a comment on their article about male trans people pressuring lesbians for sex.

Given the subject matter, notice her strategic conflation between male trans people and female trans people, and her presumption that dating only one sex is unnatural, comparable to racism.

Tweet from Ash Sarkar, journalist responding to the BBC’s cotton ceiling article (linked above) (Wikipedia)

Nobody should be pressured into sex with anybody, for any reason.

I wouldn't want someone to feel they had to have sex with me out of social pressure, but it'd be fair to ask whether racism plays a part in announcing every 5mins that they'd never sleep with a woman of colour!

Homosexuality ≠ racism! Same sex attraction – opposite sex attraction = natural sexual orientation, not a conspiracy.

NBC article responds to the BBC cotton ceiling article.

BBC responds to complaints about its cotton ceiling article.

Article from VICE by a male trans person (2018). Wikipedia says VICE is a news outlet that’s won a number of prizes.

Let me repeat: I am not saying that it is imperative to be attracted to trans women. I am arguing that your attraction is shaped by preconceived notions and stereotypes of transgender folks. So, no, I am not shaming you because of your sexual orientation. I am merely asking you to critically reflect on the factors that might shape your attractions.

[…]

This doesn’t mean that you have individual control or agency over your sexuality or gender, but that the meanings and perceptions that inform our sexuality and gender are relative to your culture and history. This also doesn’t mean there’s no biological influence, but how we interpret our biological impulses do not exist in a vacuum empty of ideological takes on the world.

[…]

Sexuality and gender aren’t simply something that comes from some biological imperative. They are phenomena that are developed through a messy brew of social, cultural, historical, and psychological factors. They can also prove to be lightly malleable if we try to dig into the foundations of how those oppressive structures influence the ways we see and understand the world.

He spends most of the article detailing harassment against trans people, which is ipso facto horrid. The point of the article is to rebut and explain what’s wrong with gay people not dating opposite-sex trans people, which he flunks at. He argues that society brainwashed gay people into being gay, that sexual orientations are “lightly malleable” (meaning, the jump from homosexual to bisexual is possible for every gay person, yay!), and urging gay people to “critically reflect on” their orientation with the obvious goal of converting them to be both-sex attracted.

Julia Serano in The Daily Beast (2017). In case you haven’t heard of him, he’s a prominent transgender activist. Wikipedia

Sexual attraction is a complex phenomenon, and of course there is lots of individual variation. I certainly do not expect every cis queer woman to swoon over me. And if it were only a small percentage of cis dykes who were not interested in trans women at all, I would write it off as simply a matter of personal preference. But this not a minor problem—it is systemic; it is a predominant sentiment in queer women’s communities. And when the overwhelming majority of cis dykes date and fuck cis women, but are not open to, or are even turned off by, the idea of dating or fucking trans women, how is that not transphobic? And to those cis women who claim a dyke identity, yet consider trans men, but not trans women, to be a part of your dating pool, let me ask you this: How are you not a hypocrite?

The kicker here is that Serano isn’t responding to any individual, he’s just looking at the big picture and noticing that lesbians want to be in same-sex relationships…which is a problem for him. You can tell there’s transphobia afoot when not enough lesbians are having opposite-sex relations. Lesbians, be more equal! Have fewer same-sex relationships and more opposite-sex relationships!

Peer-reviewed scholarly paper Transgender exclusion from the world of dating (alternative link) (2018)

In an ideal world, free of cisgenderism and transprejudice, an individual’s gender identity (transgender vs. cisgender) would not factor into whether they were viewed as a viable dating partner. […] In other words, a heterosexual man or lesbian woman, usually attracted to women, would also indicate a willingness to date trans women.

Scholarly article casually says that in an ideal world, homosexuality and heterosexuality wouldn’t exist. Both-sex attraction only.

Tweets from Veronica Ivy, aka Rachel McKinnon, the male trans person who won the 2018 women’s world championships in cycling. Wikipedia says Ivy is also a tenured professor at a university in South Carolina, US.

Stop comparing homosexuality to something unnatural challenge.

Second transcript of video from EverydayFeminism.com by Riley Dennis (2017), a male trans person.

So what’s been happening is that some people are making the argument that it’s not cissexist at all to only be attracted to people with one kind of genitals. For example, these people might argue that being attracted to only women with vaginas in no way negatively affects trans people.

[…]

1. ‘You’re Being Homophobic!’

In this argument, I often get accused of homophobia, lesbophobia, or lesbian erasure by lesbians who believe that I’m trying to change their sexual orientation or identity. They say that my language sounds a lot like a dude who tried to turn them straight or like conversion therapy.

Those responses are rooted in cissexism.

This is because I’m not telling lesbians that they can’t be lesbians. If you’re a woman who only likes women, go ahead, identify as a lesbian! But some women have penises. And if the fact that some lesbians might be attracted to those women offends you, it’s because you don’t think trans women are real women.

That’s because these accusations of homophobia make it sound like I’m trying to convince lesbians to like men, but I’m not. I’m trying to show that preferences for women with vaginas over women with penises might be partially informed by the influence of a cissexist society.

[…]

2. ‘You’re Upholding Rape Culture’

[…] Suggesting that trans women are rapists for wanting to be fully recognized as women is extremely harmful.

And I should note that I’m not saying you have to do anything without consent. I’m a big of fan of affirmative consent, and you should never feel pressured to have sex with somebody. This isn’t about an individual.

This is not saying, “You have to have sex with a trans woman, or you’re cissexist.” It’s saying that you should examine the societal influences on your preferences. There’s a massive difference between honing in on individual scenarios and considering wider societal issues and attitudes.

[editor’s note: RD is using “fully recognized as women” as a euphemism for sexual relations. Believing that attraction to or sex with you is necessary for your “recognition” IS rape culture.]

3. ‘I’m Allowed to Have My Preferences!’

Technically, you’re right. […]

So if we look a little deeper into this issue, there’s the possibility of your genital preferences being at least somewhat partially informed by growing up in a cissexist society. There’s also the fact that a preference is different than saying you would never do something. [editor’s note: well spotted!]

Like, having a preference for tall girls is fine, but refusing to date anyone under 5’7″ is ridiculous. And obviously that’s not a perfect analogy because short girls as a group don’t face the societal marginalization that trans women do.

But I’m interested in having a conversation about labels and implicit bias and trans-inclusive language. Simply saying “It’s my preference, end of discussion” is a good way of sidelining all of those issues and, instead, centering the feelings of cis people in a discussion that’s about trans people. [editor’s note: dismissing the person who’s rejecting sexual activity and prioritizing the feelings of the person being rejected isn’t helping his argument re: not upholding rape culture]

[…]

And the last thing I want to say about this is that if you’d rather not have sex with a woman who has a penis, maybe just don’t make such a huge deal of it. Trans women are often afraid of not being found attractive or desirable after coming out, and you’re not helping.

If you really want to be an ally to trans people, you could just not talk about it. And by that, I’m not trying to censor you, okay, so don’t pretend this is censorship. You have the freedom to say whatever you want – I’m just asking you to consider if it’s necessary to say those things when they reflect harmful or violent rhetoric.

Because if you have an opinion that you know is only gonna make people feel bad about themselves, why constantly share it with the world?

It’s fine to not find people attractive, but it’s mean to constantly yell about how unattractive you find those people, especially when those people are oppressed. For another imperfect analogy, it’d be like if you weren’t attracted to girls with short hair.

That would fine, but you probably wouldn’t write articles and make videos defending why it’s okay for you to not like girls with short hair. You could do that, but sometimes it’s just best to be polite.

[editor’s note: so lesbians should shut up about being gay bc it hurts the opposite sex’s feelings.]

First transcript of video from EverdayFeminism.com by Riley Dennis (2016). Archive link.

I think the main concern that people have in regards to dating a trans person is that they won’t have the genitals that they expect. Because we associate penises with men and vaginas with women, some people think they could never date a trans man with a vagina or a trans woman with a penis.

But I think that people are more than their genitals. I think that you could feel attraction to someone without knowing what’s between their legs. And if you were to say that you’re only attracted to people with vaginas or people with penises, it really feels like you’re reducing people just to their genitals. You’re kind of objectifying them – but you’re thinking of them more as genitals than objects. So I guess you’re kinda genitalifying them?

Anyway, my point is, we have implicit biases that we were raised with or that we developed over time, and they can be hard to get rid of. And I think this can be especially prominent within the queer community.

Gay men often pride themselves on being disgusted by vaginas, and the same goes for lesbian women with penises. It’s difficult because some queer people have built their sexual identities on these repulsions, but I don’t think they’re innate at all. If you met someone who was extremely attractive, had a great personality, but didn’t have the genitals that you wanted, you might be surprised to find that it isn’t a dealbreaker.

[…]

But we know that sexual orientations are more innate than learned – they’re more nature and less nurture. Gay “conversion therapy” has been proven not to work. But you can unlearn your own prejudices; it just takes time and conscious effort.

Gee, arguing that a gay man’s disinterest in vaginas or a lesbian’s disinterest in penises is unnatural? Accusing gay people of being superficial perverts incapable of real love? Urging gay people to “unlearn” their "prejudice” to stop being gay? Who’da thunk?

A rant from the site Feministing.com (2012) from a male trans person (an Executive Director of the site). Co-founded by Jessica Valenti, Feministing.com merited attention from the New York Times when it shut down in 2019. It had more than a million unique monthly visitors at its peak.

“I date women and trans men” is the definition of cissexism. It’s basing your frame for sexuality on the gender coercively assigned to a person by their doctor at birth, not on that person’s actual identity. In this case, we’re talking about folks who were assigned female. Of course, “women” means cis women – trans women totally drop off the map.

[…]

It’s incredibly undermining to frame sexuality in a way that lumps these men in with all female assigned folks instead of with cis men. It’s a failure, in the realm of sexuality, to recognize that trans men’s male identities are just as legitimate as cis men’s. If you’re going to base sexuality on gender, better base it on people’s actual genders.

I get why a lot of female assigned folks exist in this frame for reasons that aren’t overtly about undermining trans identities. There’s a ton of gender based trauma out there, and I understand that folks associate this with cis men, and not with trans men. But that’s not a reality-based approach to gender. A lot of that trauma gets easily linked to genitals, but this isn’t about bodies, it’s about patriarchy. I think this sexuality frame is a big part of why so many trans men get away with (and are sometimes even encouraged to practice) unchecked misogyny and male privilege (remember, power is complicated. You can experience both male privilege and cissexist oppression).

My trans brothers deserve better than sex in a frame that undermines their identities. This doesn’t mean queer cis women and gender non-conforming female assigned folks can’t fuck trans men, but then they owe it to these guys to reframe their sexuality in a way that’s not undermining – to recognize that they sleep with men, and to question why they’re OK with sleeping with trans men and not cis men.

[…]

I do put a little more responsibility on trans men for letting this frame push their trans sisters out. This approach to sexuality totally erases trans women by excluding us from the group of sexually existing queer women. Yes, it’s also incredibly undermining of trans women’s identities by moving us out of the category “women” when it comes to sexuality. Ultimately, this frame goes back to the gender coercively assigned at birth for trans women as well. It’s a way for transmisogyny to advance unchecked, because trans women totally drop out of the conversation.

Obviously, claiming that people should be allowed to define their own sexualities without judgment goes out the window. Certain sexualities (*cough* homosexuality in particular *cough*) aren’t allowed.

Advice column from Xtra* Magazine responding to a question from a older woman who calls herself “Ornery Lesbian Dissident” (OLD) by a male trans person (2020)

But what about trans people like [Riley] Dennis and writer Brynne Tannehill, who suggest that it is transphobic for cis people to not want to date trans people?

First, I would suggest spending some time with Dennis and Tannehill’s work, because they present their perspectives with intelligence and nuance. They point out that all sexual and romantic preferences are in some way shaped by cultural and political forces. We are taught, for example, that thin is attractive and fat is ugly; that young people are deserving of sex while elders are not; that white skin is more beautiful than dark skin. While we shouldn’t let this observation dictate our sexual behaviour by immediately (and tokenistically) seeking out “diverse” sexual partners in the name of political correctness, it’s worth thinking about in the long term.

[…]

So when we talk about sexual preference, I believe that it is both possible and preferable to work towards healing our erotic selves by entering into a more mindful and intentional relationship with desire. This is decidedly not about forcing ourselves into sex with someone we aren’t attracted to, but rather about making empowered choices to experiment and expand our desire at a pace and direction that feels right.

You mention, OLD, that you are not attracted to penises or “the way that trans women look,” which I think is fair in the sense that you know your own feelings best. Yet I have to point out that not all trans women have penises, and not all trans women look the same. You also identify as someone who loves women, and I imagine that you love more than their genitalia and their outward appearance. So what does this mean for your assertion that you are not attracted to trans women?

Choosing to stay open to new possibilities while also staying grounded in empowered choice offers us a third way forward in a world where clashing ideals tell us that we can only have love for trans women or consent for cis women, not both. Yet of course, love and consent can only thrive in the presence of one another. Reclaiming control over our own bodies can sometimes open new pathways to erotic joy—throughout history, a great many cis people have discovered a deep and powerful attraction to trans people despite being taught to revile us.

I thought this author was pretty reasonable the first time I read the article; my second time through, I spotted the guilt-tripping and manipulative sexist tactics. He starts off by appealing to the desire to “just get along” (because of course lesbians getting along with male trans people has to include being closeted and/or open to sexual activity), he regurgitates the typical transgender homophobia by comparing it to unnatural things like racism etc, and implies lesbians are shallow genital-obsessed perverts who aren’t appreciating a person’s true self if they are homosexual. (“…I imagine you love more than their genitalia and their outward appearance. So what does this mean for your assertion that you are not attracted to [the opposite sex]?”)

Throughout he emphasizes over and over the idea of “choosing to stay open to the possibility,” “regarding each other through the eyes of possibility,” “it is possible and preferable to work towards […] making empowered choices to experiment and expand our desire at a pace and direction that feels right”—unless what feels right is being homosexual and rejecting the requirement to keep the door open to possibly someday be opposite-sex attracted.

Arguing that rejecting homosexuality “empowers” lesbian is pretty bad. Plus the “sex positive” conviction that sexual boundaries and limits are meant to be overcome, that they’re something to let go of or go beyond (and if you don’t want to go beyond them…you’re not getting along! Be nice!).

In a nutshell: “All” he’s asking for is for lesbians to get along with male trans people by holding onto the just the possibility that someday they’ll desire sexual activity with male trans people! Yet male trans people are not expected to make room for the possibility that female homosexuality is in fact natural, not an arbitrary construct they can identify into. Lesbians are expected to do the work of getting along.

Also the way he says this ~openness to the possibilities~ is the only way to avoid a world where “we can only have love for trans women or consent for lesbians”…as if male trans people can’t get love anywhere else except from lesbians? What?? It has a manipulative, abusive “nobody will love me if you don’t” vibe. Why is lesbians’ disinterest in the opposite sex a problem to solve?

Article from The Daily Beast (2021) by a male trans person, responding to the BBC’s article about the cotton ceiling

Through selective sourcing and questionable quotes, Lowbridge uses phrases like “biological female” and “biological male” to frame cisgender lesbians as defenseless maidens and equate trans women with aggressive, cisgender male sexual predators. Perhaps not so coincidentally.

Here are the basic points of Lowbridge’s 3,850-word screed, to which the BBC attached a warning to readers about “strong language”:

• Using anecdotal accounts of assholish behavior, the author reveals there are lesbians who don’t want to have sex with transgender women yet were “pressured,” “coerced” and at least one said they were raped.

That’s horrible, but as Canadian jurist and bioethicist Florence Ashley told The Daily Beast: “It’s absolutely insidious to transform discussions of how cisnormativity shapes desire into claims of ‘coercion’ which play into the long-standing demonization of trans women as ‘rapists’ and ‘perverts.’”

• Claiming an aversion to sex with a trans woman is “transphobic” and will result in loss of relationships, damage to reputation and in at least one case could potentially cost a lesbian her career.

The truth, cis bisexual and human resources director Jenn Kelley of Connecticut told The Daily Beast, is that people have preferences. “Some lesbians do not like penetration. And to some the mere idea of fellatio literally makes them gag. Therefore, they don’t have sex with people with penises,” Kelley said. “I honestly don’t think that makes them transphobic. They simply choose to engage in sex with persons without penises. Is that a fetish? No! It’s knowing what you like/don’t like and choosing that. It doesn’t diminish another because their gender or body parts aren’t what you prefer.” [Editor’s note: I wish the author had included more quotes from this source, because source doesn’t use the word “preference” to describe homosexuality ("preference” is inserted by the author), but it’s not clear what her opinion is of people being openly homosexual or declining to date post-op male trans people]

[…]

Penis. Penis. Penis. Penis. Penis. Penis. Penis. Although there are trans women, many of them who identify as lesbians, who undergo bottom surgery to transform male genitalia into a neovagina—which appears and functions in almost every way like female genitalia—this is barely referenced in favor of repeating the fallacy that all trans women have penises.

[…]

“This BBC article is just the latest biased and factually inaccurate story about transgender people to appear in British mainstream media,” a spokesperson for GLAAD told The Daily Beast. “It's frankly bad journalism to have a reporter and news outlet reinforce lies and spread hate about a group of people that is already profoundly marginalized. Mainstream media in the UK should immediately give transgender people and their allies platforms to share stories about what it really means to be a trans person in the UK today.”

“The idea that trans women need to pressure anyone into sex is so laughably absurd,” tweeted actor, producer and activist Jen Richards, who happens to be trans. “Don’t fall for stupid op-ed’s written with little to no basis in lived experience and by people who want to erase trans people from public life. If you don’t want us, we don’t want you either. All we ask is that you leave us and our partners the fuck alone.”

“I’m a proud woman, a proud trans person, and a proud lesbian,” writer and trans activist Charlotte Clymer told The Daily Beast. “I don’t know any trans or nonbinary person, let alone any activists, who would claim that cis lesbians are obligated to be attracted to trans women. I don’t know anyone in the trans community who would claim there’s an imperative for any person, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, to be attracted to someone because they’re trans or non-binary. No person is ever obligated to be attracted to another person. That completely goes against the concept of autonomy and consent that is so central to the trans and nonbinary community.” [editor’s note: lol]

This is not a new topic, and there are many great sources one could consult if only Lowbridge had tried: Ana Valens wrote a guide for queer women who want to have sex with trans women in Allure in 2019. She called communication “the lifeblood of good sex.” Mey Rude wrote “How to Have Lesbian Sex with a Trans Woman” for Autostraddle in 2018. In response to a cis lesbian backlash in the comments section, CEO and editor in chief Marie Lyn “Riese” Bernard wrote:

“There is nothing coercive in this post. It’s just information for people who want it. But it is mean that trans women can’t just talk about having sex without hundreds of people showing up to announce I’M NOT ATTRACTED TO YOU OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU! I don’t feel like that would happen on a post about fat women or masculine women or femme women or whatever type of woman if that happens to not be your thing, you know?”

Although Lowbridge wrote that she consulted trans women on both sides of this issue including YouTubers, she overlooked one trans lesbian YouTube personality who has tackled lesbian sex quite frequently: Melody Maia Monet.

“The goal seems to be to create an outsized moral panic over a ‘problem’ that even the anti-trans activists admit is marginal at best,” Monet told The Daily Beast. “Judging from how often I have been propositioned by lesbians who don’t care that I’m trans, framing cis and trans lesbian sexual relationships as forced does not reflect reality.”

Author and public speaker Stephanie Battaglino had this to say: “By focusing on one’s anatomy, the author is missing the bigger—and more inclusive—picture: my being trans is not the only way I present myself to the world. My personality, my interests, my sense of humor, my intelligence and a thousand other things, define who I am as a person. Unfortunately, there seems to be no mention of any of those qualities—that we all possess—in this piece. Do you think this was ghost written by JK Rowling?”

My reality: Since coming out 8 years ago I’ve been propositioned by both women and men. As a queer woman, I’ve been romantic with both women and men. And I don’t claim to be like every other woman, because no woman is. But listen to me, BBC: In publishing this drivel, you’re providing ammunition to those who want to see me excluded, oppressed, beaten, or worse, dead.

The bottom line: I am not my vagina. I was never my penis. But my body, as is every body, is worthy of love, and only from those with whom I consent to share it.

The author’s main argument is that This Doesn’t Happen and if it does happen, it’s not a big deal, and the women probably made up all up anyway. He cites one “expert” who euphemistically refers to homosexuality as “cisnormativity,” then quotes a woman who supports homosexuality as long as you Don’t Say Gay, and then follows up with a quote from GLAAD about how it’s “factually inaccurate” that some male trans people sexually harass lesbians.

He then quotes a ton of trans people, and ends with a dose of homophobia, using the modern politically correct terminology to accuse gay people of being shallow genital obsessed perverts who can’t love a person for who they are on account of their unfortunate homosexuality (the “too bad for you”/“I feel sorry for you”/“I’m so much better than you” refrain).

This article is an example of how transgender activists have zero interest in addressing sexual harassment committed by trans people when the option to condemn lesbian victims and publicly shame lesbians for being homosexual is on the table. Literally! There’s no point to making a cookie-cutter disclaimer about how you’re totally against rape culture, definitely, and then spend the rest of the article doing what he did.

Video of Owen Jones (2022), a same-sex attracted British journalist (Wikipedia)

Some random person on twitter accused Jones of being a hypocrite for only dating men while condoning the homophobia directed at lesbians and gay men for only dating their own sex. There’s no evidence Jones dates only his own sex…but Jones provided evidence of his own homophobia in the video he filmed in response.

The rando says that Jones can disprove his accusation by saying right now that he supports the right for women who are exclusively same-sex attracted to openly announce their orientation (as opposed to being closeted, pretending to be both-sex attracted). Jones says…

Skip to 2:20

“You can prove it if you unequivocally state that lesbians are not transphobic for being vocal or nice about exclusive attraction to the same sex.” You can see he’s shifted the goalposts here, he doesn’t have any evidence for his claim, so he’s abandoned that. And he doesn’t know anything about my own dating history, either, incidentally. The original hypocrisy as he claims I only dated people he considered to be men without me saying anything. [mumbles something in his British accent, saying that the goalposts have shifted].

2:49 But what does he even mean here? Well, he means the right of people to publicly say that trans women are men and trans men are women, just to rampantly misgender them, and the way I’ve put it there, frankly, is even more toned down than the way lots of them misgender trans people, which is just aggressive and hateful and all the rest of it. That’s got nothing to do with who you date, whatsoever, it’s completely irrelevant to that point.

3:13 My response was clear: why do you feel the need to tell the world that you think trans women are men and trans men are women? It objectively makes the lives of trans people harder and more miserable. The basis of hate crimes and violence and abuse and discrimination against trans people, is that they are impostors, that they’re not really who they say they are, that they’re either entitled and aggressive men or fallen women. That’s the basis of abuse. Going around misgendering them is just obviously just whipping up hatred and bigotry to them.

3:44 So you make their lives harder, but how does it make your life happier or contented to do that? What benefit is it to you?

Here’s the key: What does it mean to unequivocally state that lesbians are not transphobic for being vocal or (not) nice about exclusive attraction to the same sex? According to Jones, what it means is, the right of people to publicly say that male trans people are men. Aka, transphobia/bigotry. In other words, he says ok, FINE, if lesbians don’t want to sleep with male trans people they don’t have to, but they ought to be ashamed of their bigoted sexual orientation. No pride for them, only shame.

After all, if you announce you’re exclusively same-sex attracted, that means you’re telling the world you think male trans people are men! So shut up and keep it to yourself, because what reason could a lesbian ever have to want to be out of the closet? What benefit or happiness does it ever bring a gay person to be out of the closet? The only reason is to hurt the feelings of trans people, apparently.

And for bonus, he says they should be ashamed because lesbians are to blame for hate crimes and violence (note: there is no data to support the claim that trans people have an unusually high murder rate) against trans people. Yup.

Tweet by Ashton Pittman (2022), an award-winning same-sex attracted American journalist

The only women permitted at Pride are the ones who like dick. No out lesbians, especially not the ones who loudly and proudly proclaim their homosexuality.

Article from Slate (2015) by a female trans person and a male trans person about tensions between lesbians and male trans people

For cis lesbians, it can also be difficult to tell the difference between an honest lack of attraction and feelings of fear or disgust at the idea of a partner who they perceive as “really” a man—feelings that are rooted in transphobic cultural conditioning. While trans lesbians seeking romantic connections in the lesbian community are often frustrated by the knee-jerk resistance many cis lesbians have to dating trans women, hearing that one’s individual reluctance to date someone may be based in transphobia can feel unfair and accusatory.

Rumors of trans women who attempt to pressure lesbians to date them by insisting that it would be transphobic to do otherwise don’t help matters—these stories may be apocryphal, but the fear of being pressured into a romantic relationship is hardly conducive to relaxed getting-to-know-yous. Rumors of predatory or pressuring behavior by trans women have been fanned by TERFs in order to paint trans women as violent and coercive.

These two want a job as mindreaders: “you think you’re not attracted to the opposite sex, but you are! Because I say so!”

Literally the authors spend the whole article blaming lesbians for this or that and then squeeze in one paragraph at the end saying “and maybe trans people are mean to butches.”

Cotton Ceiling From Not-As Respectable Sources

Wiktionary

A social barrier to consideration (by cisgender women) of transgender women as viable sexual partners

How about, instead of a “social barrier,” a homosexual fact?

Article on Medium (2018) from smalltime male trans journalist who has been published in HuffPost, i News, and PinkNews one time each.

The author, who says he’s bisexual, has also outright stated he personally wouldn’t date a trans person. (He doesn’t say why.)

The cotton ceiling, in short, makes the point that there are certain cis lesbians who are using their sexuality as a way to deny trans women’s womanhood. It’s not about coercing them, it’s not about saying you can’t have sex with only people you want to have sex with, its not about corrective rape or conversion therapy. It’s literally just a name for the concept of using your sexuality as a way of denying trans women’s womanhood; ie “I would never have sex with a trans woman, I’m a lesbian and don’t like men”.

And this happens an awful lot in the anti-trans community. It’s their ultimate GOTCHA! because sexual preferences are kind of seen as a little sacred. I get why, LGB people have fought really bloody hard in our societies to get to where they are now and I don’t want to at all take that away from them. I get the fiery passion behind defending your right to love who you want to love — and as a bisexual woman in a lesbian relationship, I’m super down for that cause. (Yes, this does make me a BLT)

[…]

Like seriously… all trans people want in this regard is that if we’re going to use this straight/gay/bi system— that we get to decide which label to use ourselves and have that respected. Like that’s literally it. But every single time a trans woman calls herself lesbian you can guarantee an anti-trans activist will show up to disagree and shout her down and call her a heterosexual male.

Personally, I suggest dropping the idea of rigid and strict labels like lesbian, gay, bi and straight. You don’t need a label, just tell people what you’re into… ie “I like vaginas and/or dicks” if genitals are absolutely important to you, or in my case “I like it when you orgasm, I like it when I orgasm, I like orgasms.”

To summarise, the cotton ceiling isn’t about corrective rape or an entitlement to vaginas. It’s about the use of sexual preferences as a weapon against the womanhood of trans women.

So he says lesbians can refuse sex with male trans people as long as they don’t say WHY, or if they do say why, they shouldn’t use a label like “gay/bi/lesbian” #DontSayGay. If only there was a label that meant “I’m biologically female and I want someone who’s biologically female.”

Twitter activist Katy Montgomerie (2022), a same-sex attracted male trans person. Montgomerie has given at least one radio interview (2023) about transgender topics, and he gave a presentation at Edinburgh University where he called “same-sex attraction” a transphobic dogwhistle (while pretending the argument is over whether gay men are attracted to male trans people, instead of the real meat of the argument, which is the lack of sexual attraction that gay people have for the opposite sex and the lack of attraction straight people have for their same sex).

Montgomerie’s argument here is that homosexuality is a product of brainwashing—gay people only think they’re exclusively same-sex attracted, but actually some of the people you’re “attracted” to are the opposite sex mimicking your common sex traits to greater or lesser extents, which means Gotcha(TM). It’s a reference to the cotton ceiling because he’s saying lesbians are actually attracted to (some) male trans people, therefore lesbians are attracted to the male sex.

Contrary to his claim, it’s easy to correct.

A lesbian on reddit explained it this way: (VERY loosely from memory, ngl I made most of this up bc I couldn’t find it again) If you saw a cake and were like “that looks delicious! I want to eat this!” and then someone told you the cake is peanut butter flavored, and you said, “oh, I hate peanut butter, never mind!” and that person says “but you just said you wanted to eat this cake! obviously you like peanut butter cake! why are you pretending not to like peanut butter cake?” would you take that person seriously or are they a moron?

You can also compare his argument to this old meme:

According to Montgomerie’s TRA logic, this guy is sexually attracted to laundry machines. After all, it doesn’t matter he didn’t know the laundry machine was a laundry machine! He was turned on by it, which means he’s attracted to it.

In conclusion, if you have to woo someone by deceiving them about what’s in your pants, it doesn’t make homosexuality unnatural, and it doesn’t mean someone’s in denial that they’re attracted to you.

“But you were turned on when you thought the laundry machine was a person!” Yes…because some things are so intuitively fundamental to attraction that the attraction is founded on them. And if that foundation isn’t there, neither is the attraction.

“But you were interested when you thought the cake wasn’t peanut butter flavored!” Yes…because some people only like cakes that don’t have peanut butter.

In order to want something, you have to have an idea of what you want, and if that idea turns out to be mismatched with reality, it doesn’t mean you suddenly like peanut butter cakes just because you wanted a cake before you knew it had peanut butter.

FFS.

From the FreeThoughtBlog (2012) by Natalie Reed, a homosexual male trans person trashing on homosexual women. The author also wrote this post on EverydayFeminism.com, and apparently worked as a staffer for the National Center for Transgender Equality.

The term “Cotton Ceiling” was originally coined by the intensely awesome Canadian trans-activist and porn star Drew DeVeaux, in which she referred (quite specifically) to the tendency within feminist and queer women’s spaces for trans women to be, while nominally accepted as women and supported in their pursuit for rights and equality, regarded and treated as essentially de-sexed, unfuckable, and sometimes a bit repulsive, with this becoming highly politicized in regards to its implications for things like what a lesbian sexuality really means, how much  of sexuality is “orientation” and something we can’t be held accountable for and how much is mediated by our perceptions, how sexuality can reveal that biases and lack of respecting gender identity continue to exist on visceral levels despite being intellectually (or superficially) rejected, etc.

[…]

For example, the idea of us as de-sexed relates directly to the whole “cutting off your penis” myth through which transsexuality is often viewed. It imagines a male-to-female transition (but tellingly NOT a female-to-male transition) as being a loss, a reduction, giving something of oneself up and becoming a lesser being, [editor’s note: lmao is he literally claiming lesbians are more interested in male trans people who have dicks than who don’t?] rather than conceiving it (much more accurately), as a growth, a reconfiguration, an expansion of self and possibilities, gaining new confidence and sexuality and empowerment and self-realization. The idea of us as being fundamentally unattractive relates into the way that cisgender standards of beauty are positioned as the only possible standards, that “passability” and “beauty” are, for trans women, directly equated, and we can ONLY be seen as beautiful, attractive or sexy in so far as we do NOT appear to be trans and instead appear to be cis (which is, you know, really fucked up). The refusal of lesbians to consider us viable sexual partners, or their seeing intimacy with us as somehow a threat to their lesbian identification (I had a #FunWithSearchTerms the other day asking “what do you call a lesbian who’s attracted to both women and trans women?”) is to ultimately, when it comes to staking your own identification upon how you conceive of our gender, to walk your talk, assert that beneath whatever lip-service you’ve paid to the legitimacy of our identity you simply don’t really regard us as women. At least not fully so.

The trouble, though, is that in the painfully typical manner that cis people will consistently view trans issues primarily or only in relation to themselves, they see this notion that how trans women are sexualized (or more accurately, desexualized) within their community is somehow all about us trying to force our way into their pants, to trick our way past their “natural” disinclination to sleeping with our “naturally” less attractive selves. [editor’s note: natural disinclination to sleep with the opposite sex] The conversation was quickly twisted into being about how “nobody needs to be obliged to sleep with someone we don’t regard as attractive! It doesn’t make me a transphobe just because I’m not interested in sleeping with trans women!”

[…]

And to be honest, saying as a blanket statement that you have no interest in sleeping with any trans women ever IS a transphobic statement. As I’ve talked about before, there really isn’t any universal or consistent outward trait common to all trans women. Logically, one can’t possibly experience a basic sexual attraction to cis women but not trans women, at least not while claiming that supposed lack of attraction has anything to do with trans women and trans bodies. It’s about how you perceive trans women. What you’re “not attracted to” is women you KNOW are trans, the IDEA of trans women, the CONCEPT. Which is inherently tied into cultural perceptions. You’d have the same reaction to a cis woman claiming to be trans as you would to an actual trans woman. It’s about your perceptions, not our bodies.

[…]

Sexuality does not occur in a vacuum. Imagine a circumstance where an enormous number of people were saying that latina women just plain weren’t attractive or sexy, and that the only way they COULD be would be to look as little like latina women as possible. And let’s say when this issue is broached, the response is “I just don’t find latinas attractive. I’m not racist! It’s just my sexual interests, which I have a right to define. Trying to force me into having sex with latinas by guilt-tripping me is a form of rape”. Wouldn’t it be justified to explore how racism, and cultural attitudes towards hispanic people, are influencing those attitudes and sexuality? Wouldn’t the women so targeted as “innately” less attractive be justified in their anger and hurt?

[…]

Some aspects of sexuality probably are innate, “Born This Way”. But a whole lot more of it is socio-culturally mediated. How cultural attitudes play out in sexuality is not something that needs to be protected from discussion, and given the fact that this often has real, actual consequences (such as perpetuating the oppression, alienation and dehumanization of trans women), it is something that needs to discussed.

The fact that simply trying to broach the subject of “the cotton ceiling” is something met with such a considerable degree of hostility and opposition is itself pretty strong proof that it is in fact a real phenomenon that is actually limiting how trans women are conceived and talked about in the queer community. It makes sense, of course… there’s a whole lot of important things tied to these issues. The stability of gender, the stability (or even validity) of sexual orientations in a world where gender is not a stable, binary, fixed thing. The importance of what a lesbian identity is and means, where it begins and ends. How much of sexuality is fixed and how much is mutable. How much of our attractions, and sexual orientations, are connected to actual bodies and actual pleasure and how much is all just in our heads and how we think of those bodies and pleasures. The presence of trans women as sexual beings poses considerable threats to understandings of gender and sexuality, both of which are things that carry deeply personal significance to everyone, perhaps especially to queer women.

But this is a discussion that needs to happen. And needs to NOT be made all about cis people. It needs to be focused on us, on trans women, and our representation. To shut down this dialogue simply because it’s a bit scary is to forfeit the right to consider oneself trans-friendly or accepting. It’s to forfeit the right to claim membership in a unified queer community.

Something remarkable about this rant is that the author himself is gay, but he’s this riled up over imagining lesbians rejecting him if he were straight. During the article, he heavily implies that he would only sleep with “cisgender” men, and when someone in the comment section called it out, the author conceded that if he and a female trans person had chemistry…he would be able to make himself have sex with her. It reeked of hypocrisy.

It’s also remarkable that it’s evident he’s a thoughtful person. I thought it was interesting when he proposed the hypothetical of a woman posing as a male trans person. But he invests all of his thought into obsessing over how it’s unfair for lesbians to have a natural sexual orientation that doesn’t change to convenience heterosexual male trans people, without recognizing it takes two to tango, so this idea that the cotton ceiling could ever be about just trans people or trans representation, and not an attack on homosexuality, is a convenient falsehood.

Video from Ira Gray (2013), female trans person who was apparently big on Tumblr back in the day

This is mostly to the ones that identify as queer or lesbian, refusing to date trans women but being ok with dating trans men and cisgender women is super, super cissexist. And I know what you’re thinking, you’re probably thinking like well it’s just my preference, so you can’t tell me what to like or what I don’t like. No, I can’t tell you want to like or to not like, but I can implore you to question why you like those things in the first place. […]

You’re basically lumping people into their gender designation markers and segregating people over something they have no control over. So instead of being like, I like people with these features, you’re saying I like people who have these things on their birth certificate […] and that seems really weird to me. […] 

Basically what you’re saying is that trans men and cisgender women are alike. […] And likewise, saying you won’t date trans women and cisgender men basically lumps them into the same category as well […] basically it goes through the process of undermining someone’s identity. […] 

Just question why you’re into something, and then refusing to do so is really fucked up too. I’ll admit I used to be transmisogynistic in regard to my sexual attraction, I didn’t want to date trans women, because I didn’t want to date someone with a penis. […] 

Any form of logic you use to justify only dating trans men and not dating trans women and dating cisgender women and not dating cisgender men is going to be cissexist. Because you have to […] use super stereotypical arguments that are anti-trans in order to justify them.

This article on Medium (2020) from a straight British male trans person: its author argues that it’s not really a problem that lesbians are “transphobic” when choosing who to date. So, still homophobic, but he expends effort debunking some of your typical trans cotton ceiling arguments.

[…] To put it in a more direct way; is it transphobic that this woman did not want to go on a date with me? Is it transphobic that she didn’t want to sleep with me?

Not to sound like I am avoiding giving an answer to my own questions but, to both: yes, and no. The point where the transphobia was taking place was in the fact that she saw transness as a deal-breaker. [editor’s note: transness is a euphemism for being biologically male]

[…]

Where I might be saying something more contentious, however, is that her being transphobic does not mean she is wrong for not wanting to sleep with me (stick with me here, okay). There are all sorts of reasons that a cis lesbian may not wish to sleep with a trans woman. […] People can quite simply not be attracted to my body, to a penis and small breasts.

[…] They might just not want to sleep with us. It’s a transphobic prejudice, sure, but they are not necessarily a transphobe, and we cannot demand that someone sleep with us to prove they are not a transphobe. I do not think that many, if any at all, trans people would actually do that when it comes down to it.

[…]

I’m a big proponent of violent resistance to fascism, to racism, both institutional and personal. I am not a fan of violent resistance to transphobic feminists. I mean, there’s a reason I’m using that phrase, rather than TERF, even if I obviously think TERF is an accurate descriptor and not a slur. But when I see phrases like KILL ALL TERFS or similar, I can’t really relate to that mindset: a TERF is not a fascist, not exactly (I do think a lot of their thinking is fascist). And most TERFs are women. It’s not helpful for us to scream that we are going to kill them, because, more than anything else, it just fulfils what they already think about us: that we are violent males (even if the people shouting that are cis women). I get why we might jump to violent resistance to this problem, because it has been effective against other forms of bigotry, but different forms of bigotry function in different ways, come from different places, and so on.

Post on the blog Cuntext (2012)

Reframing a specific experience of cissexism and transphobia—not being considered datable or fuckable by the majority of one’s queer community—as simply women treating each other badly is not only delusional, it’s exclusive.

[…]

At risk of sounding repetitive, because this is becoming a bit of a catchphrase for me these days: QUESTION YOUR DESIRE. If you have spent any time thinking about how damaging and fucked up it is that every women’s magazine photoshops models to be skinnier, whiter, and less wrinkled, then you’ve already started. Standards of beauty, aesthetics of fuckability, are not created in a vacuum. They come out of real societies, and they are built on that society’s sexism and racism and ableism and fat negativity and, yes, cissexism and transphobia. Furthermore, desire is not static or permanent. Do you think the same things are hot now as you did when you were fourteen, or has your desire evolved and expanded?

Desire is malleable. Desire changes, and it changes based on many things, including our understandings of what’s hot, who’s a woman, and what lesbian and/or queer sex is. We become less transphobic by learning to see our cis privilege and recognizing instances of cissexism, transphobia, and transmisogyny when they occur. The more we do that, the more “real” trans women become to us, the more legitimately women they become to us—NOT that they need our approval. We do not do this because they need our approval as women; they are women whether we are able to see it and whether we act like it or not. We do this because we recognize that our perceptions are warped and incorrect, and because we want to see clearly. We do this because we are giant assholes when we can’t recognize all women as such, and we’d rather not be assholes. Therefore, what is being asked of us is that we take apart our desire, see its transphobia and transmisogyny, and then we remake it. For me, this is actually a core element of queerness, and don’t fucking tell me it’s impossible, because I do it all the time and so do tons of people out there. Once again: question your desire. Do more. See more. And hey, date more and fuck more, too.

More conversion therapy rhetoric about desire being malleable, asserting lesbians have a moral obligation to remake their sexual orientation to be both-sex attracted, and actually the gayest thing of them all is remaking yourself in order to stop being too gay.

Blog post (2015) on Transgender Forum by a male trans person in San Francisco.

Long, detailed reddit post (2013) about lesbians who won’t date male trans people.

Also, would you rule someone out because she had six toes? Whenever I hear a straight man ask how sex works in the absence of a penis, I feel sorry for his girlfriends/wife, because he clearly doesn't understand how sexytimes work; when I hear a lesbian rule out trans women because of the presence of a hidden penis I feel sorry for her partner, because how superficial is that?

BONUS: Occasionally a TRA recognizes the rape culture inherent in bashing people for not experiencing sexual attraction. (They almost never acknowledge the homophobia.) See:

Tumblr post “Should the cotton ceiling be overcome?”

Medium post “On Dating, Lesbians, Trans Women, and Gender Critical Feminism” (archive)

Changing the Definition to Win the Argument

Sometimes TRAs recognize the “cotton ceiling” is problematic and pretend it means something else in order to justify calling lesbians bigots. I’ve supplied abundant evidence here for what it means. Here are some sources that try to change the definition to win the argument:

SJ Wiki gives multiple “complementing” definitions, the primary definition being that male trans people are excluded from the “higher echelons” of same-sex attracted women (and then quoting multiple sources I already quoted here clarifying that “higher echelons” means sexual activities) (also claims the “cotton” in cotton ceiling refers to the underwear of male trans people, which…does not make it better)

In The Ugly Argument of the Cotton Ceiling the author claims it means men “pretending” to be male trans people to sleep with lesbians

Blog post arguing that cotton ceiling refers to how lesbians are scared of how people will react if they date male trans people (which ofc they’re dying to do!)

Blog post trotting out the claim that the cotton ceiling has nothing to do with banging lesbians or with lesbians at all and it’s all about male trans people’s feelings

Essay from a male trans person who appears to identify as a radical feminist, repeatedly cites Dworkin etc. He alludes to the cotton ceiling as a “privilege gradient” between lesbians and male trans people. His essay is only readable because women in the comments convinced him to change his wording to be less rapey. In the comments of a different essay, a commenter references the cotton ceiling by name.

I’ve also seen them use the terms “genital preference” or “sexual exclusion” to talk about the cotton ceiling without using the searchable term.

[ingek73]

Guns and lies

US elections 2024

How Tim Walz went from NRA favorite to ‘straight Fs’ on gun rights

In Congress, Walz was endorsed by gun rights advocates. But after the Parkland shooting, he changed his tone

Cecilia Nowell

Fri 9 Aug 2024 14.00 BST

Supported by

Cal Wellness for Guns

At his first rally as Kamala Harris’s running mate Tuesday, Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz, invoked an issue at the forefront of many Americans’ minds: the right “for our children to be free to go to school without worrying they’ll be shot dead in their classrooms”.

But Walz wasn’t always a fierce advocate against gun violence. The evolution of the vice-presidential candidate, who once boasted an A rating from the NRA, shows the growing relevance of gen Z voters, who’ve grown up amid a surge in mass shootings in the US and are enthusiastically backing Harris.

“Gun violence is the number one killer of our generation, meaning we can’t afford anything less than leaders who will prioritize basic gun safety,” Timberlyn Mazeikis, a gun violence survivor and volunteer leader with Students Demand Action from Minnesota, said in a joint statement issued by Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action supporting Walz yesterday.

Kamala Harris And Running Mate Tim Walz Make First Appearance Together In Philadelphia<br>PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA - AUGUST 6: Democratic presidential candidate, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and Democratic vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz appear on stage together during a campaign event at Girard College on August 6, 2024 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Harris ended weeks of speculation about who her running mate would be, selecting the 60-year-old midwestern governor over other candidates. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The Tim Walz cheat sheet: 10 things to know about Harris’s VP pick

Read more

Elected to the US House of Representatives in 2007, Walz was long beloved by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association endorsed and donated to his campaigns, giving him an A rating. In 2016 Guns & Ammo magazine included him on its list of top 20 politicians for gun owners.

That wasn’t terribly surprising. Walz was representing a rural red Minnesota district and had grown up at a time and place where guns were popular for hunting – not mass shootings.

“I grew up in a small town, [so] I’d put my shotgun in my car, or at school or in the football locker, to go pheasant hunting afterwards,” he told Pod Save America last month. “But we weren’t getting shot in school.”

That all changed after the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida, he has said.

In a 2018 video March for Our Lives co-founder and Parkland survivor David Hogg reshared on X last month, Walz recounts his then teenage daughter Hope approaching him in the days after the shooting: “Dad, you’re the only person I know who’s in elected office, you need to stop what’s happening with this.”

“For me, it was both a reckoning and an embarrassment,” he told Pod Save America, recalling that the children killed at Sandy Hook elementary school would have been his son’s age.

Two weeks later, while campaigning for governor, Walz authored an op-ed in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, where he called the NRA “the biggest single obstacle to passing the most basic measures to prevent gun violence in America”. He went on to say that he’d donated the $18,000 the organization had donated to his past campaigns and wouldn’t accept NRA contributions in the future. He noted that he was currently co-sponsoring a “bump stocks” ban and came out in support of an assault weapons ban.

As Minnesota governor, Walz has signed wide-ranging gun safety measures into law, most notably a 2023 law including universal background checks and a “red flag law” (which allows state officials to temporarily seize the firearms of someone a court has ruled may be dangerous to themselves or others).

This year, Walz called for Minnesota lawmakers to go even further, asking them to support measures that would require safe firearm storage, better reporting of lost and stolen guns, and harsher penalties for “straw buyers” (those who purchase firearms for others who cannot legally have them). Since then, he’s signed legislation that prohibits automatic weapon modification devices and collects data on gun crime.

Walz remains an enthusiastic hunter – something he’s emphasized in previous campaigns and makes him something of an everyman.

“There’s a vision to reduce gun violence with absolutely no infringement on those who lawfully own guns, to use them for things that many of us cherish,” he told reporters in Bloomington, Minnesota, last week.

Gun safety advocates have already come out in support of his candidacy, including the gun violence prevention organization founded by former congresswoman and gun violence survivor Gabby Giffords (who joined Walz in Minnesota in 2023 when he signed the state’s universal background checks into law).

“As governor, Tim did what others called impossible, passing background checks and extreme risk protection laws in Minnesota with a slim gun safety majority,” Giffords said. “It wasn’t easy, but he got it done with hard work and effective leadership. His work as governor has saved lives, and I know that will continue when he is vice-president.”

Harris’s campaign, which has already drawn great support from gen Z voters and gun violence prevention advocates, has called for an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and red flag laws. Last month, the NRA called her “an existential threat to the second amendment”.

That doesn’t seem to bother Walz. “I had an A rating from the NRA. Now I get straight F’s,” he tweeted last month. “And I sleep just fine.”

[wutbju]

By their fruit ye shall know them....

Adam Morgan, BJU Class of 2011, is proving that he is NOT safe. Consorting with Matt Gaetz of all people? Really??

You can say no, Adam.

Far-right conservative Matt Gaetz, a Florida Congressman, is coming to Greenville to help campaign against his colleague William Timmons.   Gaetz will join South Carolina state representative and Fourth Congressional District Candidate Adam Morgan to keynote a campaign rally on April 23 at the Greenville Marriott.   “I’m looking forward to welcoming Congressman Gaetz to South Carolina,” said Morgan in a press release. “Matt is a strong leader in Congress and I’m thankful to have his support, as well as several other conservative members of Congress, who are committed to consistently fighting for conservative ideals and winning.”  Doors will open at 6 p.m. for the rally beginning at 6:30. Tickets required for entrance can be found here.  “Congress needs more America First warriors willing to fight the establishment, the uniparty and the special interests,” said Congressman Gaetz. “Adam Morgan is that warrior who will join me to fight the DC swamp to take back our country and restore our conservative values. I enthusiastically endorse his candidacy for South Carolina’s Fourth Congressional District and am excited to have him fighting with me soon for the country we love.”  Morgan, an extreme conservative who chairs the SC Freedom Caucus, recently garnered national attention on the social media app X, formerly known as Twitter, when he posted a video of him on the South Carolina House Floor claiming that dark money groups were behind the pressure for him to vote for an economic development.  “My constituents told me to vote no on the $1.3 billion VW project ($400 million of which is taxpayer cash). But the swamp wants me to ignore those ‘back home,’” Morgan posted to X, which received 1.3 million views.  Gaetz responded to Morgan’s post, saying “Inject this into my veins.” Gaetz has also openly spoken about Timmons on X, saying “We need better Republicans than this.”   Still, earlier this year, Timmons garnered former President Donald Trump’s endorsement for a second time.  "Congressman William Timmons is a terrific advocate for the people of South Carolina's 4th Congressional District," Trump said in a press release. A captain in the Air National Guard, he fights hard to secure our border, strengthen our military, support our veterans, grow the economy, defend our Second Amendment, and hold Joe Biden and the Radical Left Accountable. An original member of my South Carolina Leadership Team, Congressman William Timmons has my complete and total endorsement."  The primary is June 11 and early voting begins Tuesday, May 28. Whoever secures the primary will face off against Democrat Kathryn Harvey. 

[wtffundiefamilies]

Rep. Lauren Boebert booted from ‘Beetlejuice’ musical for disturbance

This isn't tremendously relevant or important, just annoying and really fucking funny. Guys, if you're seeing a show, behave like an adult who's been out in public before.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/13/lauren-boebert-beetlejuice-musical-ejected/

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) was ejected from the musical “Beetlejuice” in Denver this week after she was accused of vaping, singing, recording the show and being disruptive during the performance.

An incident report obtained by the Colorado Sun says that two patrons were reprimanded, then escorted from the premises for “causing a disturbance” during the musical Sunday night at the city-owned Buell Theatre. The incident report, which does not name the people involved, says the patrons were issued a warning during intermission after three complaints were made by other patrons about their behavior.

Surveillance footage from the theater published by KUSA, an NBC affiliate in Denver, appears to show Boebert and a man being escorted from their seats. In the hall, Boebert is seen rebuking an usher, at one point giving him the middle finger.

As they were being escorted from the premises, according to the incident report, the pair made statements such as: “Do you know who I am?” and “I am on the board” and “I will be contacting the mayor.” Officers with the Denver Police Department responded to the incident and stayed in the lobby until the pair left the venue, the report says.

Surveillance video shows Boebert leaving ‘Beetlejuice’

An agency of the city of Denver released surveillance video showing Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) being escorted out of the Buell Theatre on Sept. 10. (Video: Denver Arts & Venues via Storyful)

Drew Sexton, Boebert’s campaign manager, confirmed to The Washington Post that the congresswoman was escorted out of the performance, but he disputed the alleged behavior cited by the venue.

“I can confirm the stunning and salacious rumors: in her personal time, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert is indeed a supporter of the performing arts (gasp!) and, to the dismay of a select few, enthusiastically enjoyed a weekend performance of Beetlejuice,” he said in a statement. Sexton noted that the Denver Post, the first to report the story, has reviewed the show as “zany,” “outrageous” and a “lusty riot.”

Sexton denied that Boebert was vaping during “Beetlejuice,” saying that heavy fog machines and electronic cigarettes were used during the show, so there might have been “a misunderstanding from someone sitting near her.”

Boebert said on X, formerly Twitter, that she “did thoroughly enjoy the AMAZING Beetlejuice at the Buell Theatre and I plead guilty to laughing and singing too loud!”

“Everyone should go see it if you get the chance this week and please let me know how it ends!” she wrote.

Denver Police Sgt. David Abeyta told The Post that the venue’s private security handled the situation, “so we actually never had any interaction with that incident.”

“It was resolved before we got involved,” he said.

Brian Kitts, director of marketing and communications for Denver Arts & Venues, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday morning. Kitts told the Denver Gazette that Boebert and her guest were booted after “numerous complaints” from fellow patrons about inappropriate behavior.

Before she was elected to Congress in 2020, Boebert was arrested or summoned at least four times, according to the Denver Post. Boebert, who represents a rural and heavily conservative part of western Colorado, was reelected last year after a recount confirmed she had won the closer-than-expected election. Her Democratic challenger, Adam Frisch, had argued that Boebert’s controversial comments and reputation as a firebrand Republican — she compared the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol to 1776, when the United States declared its independence — were a distraction for her district. She won by 546 votes.

Frisch is challenging Boebert again for her seat in 2024.

“Beetlejuice,” a Broadway adaptation of the 1988 Tim Burton film, is showing at the Buell Theatre until Sept. 17. The venue cautions that the musical “contains strong language, mature references, and a lot of the crazy, inappropriate stuff you would expect from a deranged demon.”

On Sunday, staff received three complaints about the couple sitting in Row E of the orchestra section, the report says. Multiple officials waited until the pair returned to their seats to give them a warning.

“I informed them that our usher team had noticed vaping and also that they were causing a disturbance for the area with noise, singing, using their cell phone, and that they need to be respectful to their neighbors,” an official wrote in the report. “Since, there was already multiple complaints, I informed the patrons that if there was another issue that they would be asked to leave.”

That’s when Boebert and her guest became “argumentative,” saying “they were in concert with everyone around them,” the report says. Five minutes later, theater officials got another report that the pair were being loud and recording the performance, according to the report. That’s when officials told Boebert and the man to leave.

“They told me they would not leave,” a venue official wrote. “I told them that they need to leave the theatre and if they do not, they will be trespassing. The patrons said they would not leave. I told them I would [be] going to get Denver Police. They said go get them.”

Minutes later, Boebert and her guest left. After they exited the theater, Boebert was seen twirling on the promenade while holding the man’s hand, according to surveillance video.

The man did not appear to be her husband, and his identity is unclear. Boebert announced in May that she was filing for divorce from her husband of almost two decades. Her husband reportedly threatened their neighbors last year in what authorities described as a neighborhood disturbance. No arrests were made in that case.

Sexton, the Boebert campaign manager, told The Post that Boebert appreciates the venue’s strict enforcement of its no-photo policy. The congresswoman “strongly encourages everyone to go see Beetlejuice,” adding: “But with a gentle reminder to leave their phones outside of the venue.”

[mylittlesecrethaven]

I Read Project 2025, So Here's A Rundown I Guess: Part 1.2

Idk if this counts as political, but I'm just reading the stupid book online and putting down what it basically says and some other stuff i Guess. (it could get political I guess? Idk. Just kinda wanted to make these posts since I'm reading the book and I kept getting annoyed with people just saying what the book says instead of writing down exactly what it says and what page to find it on)

(That's not saying I won't do the same thing, but for some things I'll rewrite what it says unless it just needs to be summarized. I will have page numbers though)

(also, if this stuff does go into effect, I will be fearing for my life and the lives of many others for the effects this could have on people. for lgbtq, minorities in religion, race, and ethnicity, and those who are poor. this will effect everyone and a lot of people should be afraid of it. that is not be getting political, that is me saying that this is a scary plan meant to give powerful people even more power)

(also, if you want a faster rundown than waiting for me to give shitty interpretations of this, go to the wiki here. it sums it up pretty well, but it doesn't state everything.)

Intro: Part 2

(these are paragraphs from the intro I found that were.... interesting. these are word for word and include page numbers. this is likely the only time I will be using word for word in this series.)

"Progressive policymaking and pundits in America either fail to understand this premise of intentionally reject it. They enthusiastically support supernational organizations like the United Nations and European Union, which are run and staffed almost entirely by people who share their values and are mostly insulated from the influence of national elections. That's why they are eager for America to sign international treaties on everything from pharmaceutical patents to climate change to "the rights of the child" - and why those treaties invariably endorse policies that could never pass through the U.S. Congress. Like the progressive Woodrow Wilson a century ago, the woke Left today seeks a world, bound by global treaties they write, in which they exercise dictatorial powers over all nations without being subject to democratic accountability.

(Page 10-11) (basically, they don't want us to be as involved with supernational organizations because such organizations are extremely left and will cause extreme changes to America that would not pass our own Congress. They also state that the left is looking to hold dictator like powers over the world through national treaties without taking accountability.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"'Cheap grace' aptly describes the Left's love affair with environmental extremism. Those who suffer most from the policies environmentalism would have us enact are the aged, poor, and vulnerable. It is not a political cause, but a pseudo-religion meant to baptize liberals' ruthless pursuit of absolute power in the holy water of environmental virtue. At its very heart, environmental extremism is decidedly anti-human. Stewardship and conservation are supplanted by population control and economic regression. Environmental ideologues would ban the fuels that run almost all of the world's cars, planes, factories, farms, and electricity grids. Abandoning confidence in human resilience and creativity in responding to the challenges of the future would raise impediments to the most meaningful human activities. They would stand human affairs on their head, regarding human activity itself as fundamentally a threat to be sacrificed to the god of nature."

(Page 11) (basically, they state that the left is using environmental activism as a way to cause suffering to elders, poor people, and the vulnerable. They state that the environmental extremism is not a political cause, but a pseudo-religion and say that the left is using it for control of the population and to affect the economy. They also state that the left sees human activity as a threat to be sacrificed to the "god of nature.")

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you want to understand the danger posed by collaboration between Big Tech and the CCP, look no further than TikTok. The highly addictive video app, used by 80 million Americans every month and overwhelmingly popular among teenage girls, is in effect as a tool of Chinese espionage. The ties between TikTok and the Chinese government are not loose, and they are not coincidental. The same can be observed if many U.S. colleges and universities. Through the CCP's Confucius Institutes, Beijing has been just as successful at compromising and coopting our higher education system as they have at compromising and coopting corporate America."

(Page 12) (basically, they state that TikTok is a tool for Chinese espionage, just like CCP's Confucius Institutes, universities set up by a Chinese education foundation, and that China has been corrupting our higher education and corporate America. Also, they state that TikTok is very popular with teenage girls for some reason.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Just two years after the death of the last surviving Constitutional Convention delegate, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln warned that the greatest threat to American would not come from without, but from within. This is evident today: Whether it be mask and vaccine mandates, school and business closures, efforts to keep Americans from driving gas cars or using gas stoves, or efforts to defund the police, indoctrinate schoolchildren, alter beloved books, abridge free speech, undermine the colorblind ideal, or deny the biological reality that there are only two sexes, the Left's steady stream of insanity appears to be never-ending. The next Administration must stand up for American ideals, American families, and American culture - all things in which, thankfully, most Americans still believe."

(Page 19) (basically, they call out these main things as "the Left's steady stream of insanity:" mask and vaccine mandates, school and business closures, keeping Americans from driving gas cars or using gas stoves, defunding the police, indoctrinating schoolchildren, altering beloved books, abridging free speech, undermining the colorblind ideal, and denying the biological reality that there are only two sexes. Then they state that the next Administration must stand up for American ideals, families, and culture, very strongly hinting that the things listed before are not those ideals, families, nor culture.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Many of the laws and regulations governing a largely underworked, over-compensated, and unaccountable federal civilian workforce are so irrational that they would be comical in a less important context. This is true whether it comes to evaluating employees' performance or hiring new employees. Only in the federal government could an applicant in the hiring process be sent to the front of the line because of a "history of drug addiction" or "alcoholism," or due to "morbid obesity," "irritable bowl syndrome," or a "psychiatric disorder." The next Administration should insist the that federal government's hiring, evaluation, retention, and compensation practices benefit taxpayers, rather than benefiting the lowest rung of the federal workforce."

(Page 20) (basically, any federal civilian employee, such as law enforcement, public health, science and engineering, politicians, and judges, should not just get a handout of a job because they have a "history of drug addiction" or "alcoholism" or because they have "morbid obesity," "irritable bowl syndrome," or a "psychiatric disorder." They also state that the next Administration should reevaluate the hiring process and hires for new federal civil employees. They also call federal civil employees "underworked, over-compensated, and unaccountable.")

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's also several instances of the term "The Great Awokening," which is funny to me.

The next two chapters I won't be covering as those are just simple summaries of the people, offices, and councils in the White House. There's several things stating which should have increased funding, which should have decreased funding, which should be reformed, and which should be shut down.

If you wanna read that, it's pages 23-63.

Next part up soon I hope.

[goldensunset]

why did my header text get bigger by itself

[princessjaqulinechess1031]

The Suit

Description: Marinette makes Damian a suit.

Characters: Damian Wayne, Marinette Dupain-Cheng

Inspired by a request by @mickylikesstuff . It’s a little different than what you originally sent, but I hope you like it!

Marinette leaned back against Damian’s chest; her knees pulled up as a balancing board for her sketchbook. Damian was sitting peacefully, watching her design with his chin buried in the top of her hair. Marinette sent a quick line down the silhouette body to mimic the lines of a part of suit pants, and Damian hummed.

“Who are you designing a suit for?” Damian asked. “Adrien?”

“No, ma moitié.” She turned her neck to smile up at him, pencil still brought to the paper. “For you.”

“For me?” he asked incredulously. “I don’t need a suit.”

Marinette rolled her eyes and turned back to her drawing. Damian Wayne, though she loved him, had no fashion sense. Black turtlenecks and jeans could only go so far. They had their time and place, but every day? That was just too much.

“Trust me, you do.”

Damian curled his arms around her shoulders in a loose embrace and rested his head back on the top of hers.

“Pennyworth already made sure I have a substantial amount,” Damian said easily. Marinette shook her head and kept sketching.

“I know Monsieur Pennyworth already did,” Marinette said. “But wouldn’t you rather have one from your girlfriend? Who just so happens to be a world-renowned fashion designer?”

Marinette had been the chief designer for the Agreste label for nearly two years now. Adrien had been rather helpless in that regard and quickly left the responsibilities of that to her while he handled the more financial aspects of the business his father left to him. Sales had gone up by 300% in those two years, and people were always begging her on her Instagram for more information on upcoming lines.

Damian grumbled under his breath. “I guess.”

That was about as enthusiastic about this that Marinette was going to get out of her loving boyfriend, so she decided to take the win.

“But Marinette, do you really have time to add another suit?” Damian asked. “Don’t you have the Summer Line to finish first?”

“I am an expert multi-tasker,” Marinette said. “Besides, it’s one suit. It won’t be that much trouble.”

*******

“Ow! That hurt!”

Marinette rolled her eyes at her boyfriend’s proclamation and kept sewing the leg of the pant. Damian stood in the center of the model stand, halfway between pouting and bored.

“It was a little poke of a needle,” Marinette said, not looking up to face him. “I’ve seen you be handed worse by much worse.”

Damian grumbled under his breath. “It’s more of the principle of the thing.”

Marinette smiled to herself but let her boyfriend’s point go. Damian had the fashion sense of an old man (black turtlenecks? Really?), and so when Marinette roped him into at least letting her make him a fashionable suit, he was none too enthusiastic. But Damian also wanted to be a supportive boyfriend, so he at least let her do it even if he complained the whole way through.

“Oh hush, ma moitié,” Marinette said. “You’re going to look fantastic.”

“A little cocky in your abilities, are we?”

Marinette raised a brow and reached the bottom hem of the pants.

“I am a professional designer,” Marinette said. “Of course, it will be fantastic. And is ‘Mr. I am the best Robin’ just get on me about being cocky?”

Damian colored crimson and turned away, caught in his own hypocrisy. Marinette laughed and finished the hem on the left side of the pants.

“You said this wouldn’t take that long,” Damian said.

“I also said that I was a normal Parisian girl for years,” Marinette countered. “I lied. Now stop, you’re not getting out of this.”

Damian groaned and threw his head back to the sky. “Why, oh, why?”

Marinette stood up and smiled at him, placing a soft kiss on his nose.

“Because you love me,” Marinette said. “Now, I just have to finish this one pant leg and then you can see how you look!” She dropped down to finish the hem of the right leg. “You’re going to love it.”

Marinette knew Damian wouldn’t do this for just anyone. Maybe Dick could convince him to stay still for a couple minutes, but only Marinette could keep him in one spot for hours. Damian was as stubborn and restless as they came, convincing him to do anything he didn’t want to do would take an act of congress.

Or a smile from Marinette.

“And finished!” Marinette said, putting the needle in the holder on her wrist. She pulled her bun out of it’s hold, and her hair cascaded down her shoulders. Damian stepped off of the model stand and reluctantly went to the mirror, where he stared at himself in surprise.

It was a soft gray suit with clean lines and a matching soft blue tie. The buttons were a dark navy blue that accented his green eyes. On the lapels were the outlines of three birds in flight, with a fourth one looking up from the opposite lapel, watching them while spreading his own wings to take off. It was a bit ostentatious, but Marinette felt that it worked with the soft gray given that all were outlined and colored in with black.

Marinette stepped up beside him, looking at him unsurely.

“Do you like it?” Marinette asked. Damian blinked and looked down at her, his shocked expression slowly working its way out into a smile.

“I love it,” Damian said softly. Marinette grinned up at him.

“I’m glad you do,” Marinette said. Marinette was happy that he did. Damian liked so few things, she was glad he liked something she had made for him.

“I love the bird details,” Damian said, and Marinette smiled to herself. The birds had been what she thought tipped it into something he liked or didn’t like. She just thought with him being Robin, it would be a nice touch referencing birds and flight. It was a simple design, but it helped make the suit stand out against others.

“Thank you,” Marinette said. “I had plans to include it on a shirt for you as well.” Marinette looked up at him with pleading eyes. “If you want the shirt.”

Damian smiled. “I’d love the shirt. And anything else.”

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A "disgrace to our country." "The tyranny we rejected." "An embarrassment to every American."

In presiding over the cases of hundreds of people accused of breaching the US Capitol on January 6 in support of then-President Donald Trump, federal judges have not held back when describing the unprecedented nature of the events of that day.

"You called yourself and everyone else patriots, but that's not patriotism," Judge Amy Berman Jackson told defendant Karl Dresch earlier this month. "Patriotism is loyalty to country, loyalty to the Constitution -- not loyalty to a head of state. That is the tyranny we rejected on July Fourth."

As the congressional investigations grow more partisan -- and Democratic and Republican viewpoints on the significance of the Capitol attack grow farther apart -- it's notable that judges appointed by presidents of both parties have described the riot as an existential danger to American democracy.

"It means that it will be harder today than it was seven months ago for the United States and our diplomats to convince other nations to pursue democracy," Judge Randolph Moss said at a July 19 sentencing hearing. "It means that it will be harder for all of us to convince our children and our grandchildren that democracy stands as the immutable foundation of this nation. It means that we are now all fearful about the next attack in a way that we never were."

There have been various points in the judicial process in which judges have stepped back to elaborate on what the January 6 riot was, fundamentally, about. Sometimes it's when a judge is knocking down defenses that downplay the seriousness of the breach. On other occasions, a judge is explaining why she is not willing to free a defendant who allegedly was part of the mob. The most striking examples come during sentencing hearings, when judges put into context the punishments they're handing down.

The willingness to opine on the broader circumstances varies from judge to judge, Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School and a former federal appellate judge, told CNN.

"The sentencing is a public event and when the underlying justice has been challenged, even indirectly, I think many judges consider it part of their civic responsibility to speak to the public," he said. "They're talking to the defendants nominally, but they're really speaking to the public -- to restore and protect the rule of law."

That includes in situations, like in the sentencing of Dresch, where the penalty -- six months in prison, which was effectively time served -- may seem light for how starkly the judges describe the crimes

"The sentences have not been incredibly punitive, which is why their comments, putting the sentence in context, are so important," said Nancy Gertner, a former federal district judge who now teaches at Harvard Law School.

Replacing 'the will of the people' with 'the will of the mob'

Time and time again, judges have made the point that the defendants were not ransacking just any federal building, nor was it a typical proceeding that they were disrupting.

What they were able to interrupt was "a critical function required by the US Constitution for a peaceful transition of power in our democracy," as DC Chief Judge Beryl Howell put at a February 23 hearing with a Proud Boys member.

At his August 4 sentencing, Jackson said that Dresch, who pleaded guilty to illegally demonstrating in the Capitol, was an "enthusiastic participant" in an effort "to subvert democracy, to stop the will of the people and replace it with the will of the mob."

Moss, a nominee of President Barack Obama, said that the attack "threatened not only the security of the Capitol, but democracy itself," as he sentenced Paul Hodgkins, a rioter who pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding.

"Our elected representatives from both political parties came together that day to perform their constitutional and statutory duty to declare, in the word of the statute, the person elected president," Moss said at the July 19 hearing. "The mob's objective was to stop that from happening. They were prepared to break the law to prevent Congress from performing its constitutional and statutory duty. That is chilling for many reasons."

The judges don't just have a symbolic viewpoint on the insurrection. Their courthouse sits only a half mile from the Capitol complex and is on the route that the rioters took from the rally in front of the White House. Howell has said that from her chamber window she could see the National Guard stationed at the Capitol in the wake of the attack.

"I teach in various countries and I'm always touting the greatness of America. It's going to be difficult for me to convince people in other parts of the world that we are that shining light upon a hill because of what happened that day," Judge Reggie Walton said at a Capitol riot plea proceeding that unfolded as the House Select Committee on the January 6 attack held its first hearing in late July.

"It's an embarrassment to me," he added. "It should be an embarrassment to every American."

'Gullible enough' to believe Trump

Judges have cited Trump's continued promotion of the same election fraud lies that propelled the riot that day as a reason that defendants should not be released from detention. Further, judges have rejected the justification put forward by some of the rioters who have argued that they deserve mercy because of how Trump encouraged the riot.

Howell, in her February 23 hearing with Proud Boys member William Chrestman, who is pleading not guilty, said that if that defense were recognized, it "would undermine the rule of law."

"Because then, just like a king or dictator, the president could dictate what is legal and what isn't in this country, and that is now how we operate here," said the judge, an Obama appointee.

But regardless of the legal conclusion they're making, judges have not shied from acknowledging the role that Trump played on that day -- even if they have not said his name explicitly.

"The defendant came to the Capitol because he placed his trust in someone who repaid that trust by lying to him," Jackson, an Obama appointee, said in her sentencing hearing for Dresch.

Earlier in Dresch's case, Jackson had denied his bond, in part because Trump "continues to propagate the lie that inspired the attack on a near daily basis," according to her May 5 opinion.

Likewise, during a plea hearing for Lori and Thomas Vinson, a couple who had stormed the Capitol, Walton said that Trump "is still making those statements" and the rioters "were gullible enough" to believe him then.

"Why should I believe they aren't prepared to do it again?" said Walton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. "Why should I believe, if there's some type of uprising again in response to what is still being said by the former President, why should I believe they won't join in again?"

He called the situation "threatening to our democracy."

The directness and the candor may be, in part, because federal judges are seated on the bench for life. Still, former judges told CNN that they believed those judges had put thought into their comments and the public should take notice of how they view January 6.

"At times when the nation is being torn apart, it's especially useful that the branch of government that still commands the highest trust of the American public -- and, I think most of the time, does behave in the less partisan, less divisive ways -- for that branch to speak up and remind the American public the principles underlying this," said McConnell, the former appellate judge.

Even though, in theory, the federal bench occupies a place above the partisan fray on Capitol Hill, at least once a judge has felt the need to address that fray directly. Alluding to a remark made by Republican Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, Judge Royce Lamberth, a President Ronald Reagan appointee, said that he was "especially troubled by the accounts of some members of Congress that January 6th was just a day of tourists walking through the Capitol."

At a June 23 hearing, Lamberth described the attack as a "disgrace to our country" and referenced the videos from the Capitol riot that the court was working to release publicly.

"We are getting them out as best we can now and it will show the attempt of some congressmen to rewrite history and say this was all just tourists walking through the Capitol is utter nonsense," the judge said.

[artielu]

[Yes, this is long, but it is worth your time to read the whole thing.]

January 6, 2021 (Wednesday)

Today the Confederate flag flew in the United States Capitol.

This morning, results from the Georgia senatorial runoff elections showed that Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff had beaten their Republican opponents—both incumbents—by more than the threshold that would require a recount. The Senate is now split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats, so the position of majority leader goes to a Democrat. Mitch McConnell, who has bent the government to his will since he took over the position of majority leader in 2007, will be replaced.

With the Democrats in control of both Congress and the Executive Branch, it is reasonable to expect we will see voting rights legislation, which will doom the current-day Republican Party, depending as it has on voter suppression to stay in power.

Trump Republicans and McConnell Republicans had just begun to blame each other for the debacle when Congress began to count the certified electoral votes from the states to establish that Democrat Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. The election was not close—Biden won the popular vote by more than 7 million votes and the Electoral College by 306 to 232—but Trump contends that he won the election in a landslide and “fraud” made Biden the winner.

Trump has never had a case. His campaign filed and either lost or had dismissed 62 out of 63 lawsuits because it could produce no evidence for any of its wild accusations. Nonetheless, radical lawmakers courted Trump’s base by echoing Trump’s charges, then tried to argue that the fact voters no longer trusted the vote was reason to contest the certified votes.

More than 100 members of the House announced they would object to counting the votes of certain states. About 13 senators, led by Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), agreed to join them. The move would slow down the count as each chamber would have to debate and take a separate vote on whether to accept the state votes, but the objectors never had anywhere near the votes they needed to make their objections stick.

So Trump turned to pressuring Vice President Mike Pence, who would preside over the counting, to throw out the Biden votes. On Monday, Trump tweeted that “the Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.” This would throw the blame for the loss onto Pence, but the vice president has no constitutional power to do any such thing, and this morning he made that clear in a statement. Trump then tweeted that Pence “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”

It seemed clear that the voting would be heated, but it was also clear that most of the lawmakers opposing the count were posturing to court Trump’s base for future elections. Congress would count Biden’s win.

But Trump had urged his supporters for weeks to descend on Washington, D.C., to stop what he insisted was the stealing of the election. They did so and, this morning, began to congregate near the Capitol, where the counting would take place. As he passed them on the east side of the Capitol, Hawley raised a power fist.

In the middle of the day, Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani spoke to the crowd, telling them: “Let’s have trial by combat.” Trump followed, lying that he had won the election and saying “we are going to have to fight much harder.” He warned that Pence had better “come through for us, and if he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country.” He warned that Chinese-driven socialists are taking over the country. And he told them to march on Congress to “save our democracy.”

As rioters took Trump at his word, Congress was counting the votes alphabetically by state. When they got to Arizona, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) stood up to echo the rhetoric radicals had been using to discredit the certified votes, saying that public distrust in the election—created out of thin air by Republicans—justified an investigation.

Within an hour, a violent mob stormed the Capitol and Cruz, along with the rest of the lawmakers, was rushed to safety (four quick-thinking staffers brought along the electoral ballots, in their ceremonial boxes). As the rioters broke in, police shot and killed one of them: Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran from San Diego, QAnon believer, and staunch Trump supporter. The insurrectionists broke into the Senate chamber, where one was photographed on the dais of the Senate, shirtless and wearing a bull costume that revealed a Ku Klux Klan tattoo on his abdomen. They roamed the Capitol looking for Pence and other lawmakers they considered enemies. Not finding them, they ransacked offices. One rioter photographed himself sitting at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk with his feet on it.

They carried with them the Confederate flag.

Capitol police provided little obstruction, apparently eager to avoid confrontations that could be used as propaganda on social media. The intruders seemed a little surprised at their success, taking selfies and wandering around like tourists. One stole a lectern.

As the White House, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Department of Homeland Security all remained silent, President-Elect Joe Biden spoke to cameras urging calm and calling on Trump to tell his supporters to go home. But CNN White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins later reported that she spoke to White House officials who were “genuinely freaked… out” that Trump was “borderline enthusiastic” about the storming of the Capitol because “it meant the certification was being derailed.”

At 4:17, Trump issued his own video, reiterating his false claims that he had been cheated of victory. Only then did he conclude with: “Go home, we love you, you’re very special.” Twitter immediately took the video down. By nighttime Trump’s Twitter feed seemed to blame his enemies for the violence the president had incited (although the rhythm of the words did not sound to me like Trump’s own usual cadence): “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

Twitter took down the tweet and banned the president for at least twelve hours for inciting violence; Facebook and Instagram followed suit.

As the afternoon wore on, police found two pipe bombs near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C., as well as a truck full of weapons and ammunition, and mobs gathered at statehouses across the country, including in Kansas, Ohio, Minnesota, California, and Georgia.

By 5:00, acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller issued a statement saying he had conferred with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, Vice President Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and had fully activated the D.C. National Guard.

He did not mention the president.

By late evening, Washington, D.C., police chief Robert J. Contee III announced that at least 52 people had been arrested and 14 law enforcement officers injured. A total of four people died, including one who died of a heart attack and one who tased themself.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone urged people to stay away from Trump to limit their chances of being prosecuted for treason under the Sedition Act. By midnight, four staffers had resigned, as well as Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger, with other, higher level officials also talking about leaving. Even Trump adviser Stephen Miller admitted it was a bad day. Quickly, pro-Trump media began to insist that the attack was a false-flag operation of “Antifa,” despite the selfies and videos posted by known right-wing agitators, and the fact that Trump had invited, incited, and praised them.

Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis laid the blame for today’s attack squarely at the feet of Trump himself: “Today’s violent assault on our Capitol, and effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule, was fomented by Mr. Trump. His use of the Presidency to destroy trust in our election and to poison our respect for fellow citizens has been enabled by pseudo political leaders whose names will live in infamy as profiles in cowardice.”

The attempted coup drew condemnation from all but the radical Trump supporters in government. Former President George W. Bush issued a statement “on insurrection at the Capitol,” saying “it is a sickening and heartbreaking sight.” “I am appalled by the reckless behavior of some political leaders since the election,” he said, and accused such leaders of enflaming the rioters with lies and false hopes. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) was more direct: “What happened here today was an insurrection incited by the President of the United States.”

Across the country tonight are calls for Trump’s removal through the 25th amendment, impeachment, or resignation. The Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have joined the chorus, writing to Pence urging him to invoke the 25th. Angry at Trump’s sabotaging of the Georgia elections in addition to the attack on our democracy, prominent Republicans are rumored to be doing the same.

At 8:00, heavily armed guards escorted the lawmakers back to the Capitol, thoroughly scrubbed by janitors, where the senators and representatives resumed their counting of the certified votes. The events of the afternoon had broken some of the Republicans away from their determination to challenge the votes. Fourteen Republican senators had announced they would object to counting the certified votes from Arizona; in the evening count the number dropped to six: Cruz (R-TX), Hawley (R-MO), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), John Kennedy (R-LA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL).

In the House, 121 Republicans, more than half the Republican caucus, voted to throw out Biden’s electors from Arizona. As in the Senate, they lost when 303 Representatives voted in favor.

Six senators and more than half of the House Republicans backed an attempt to overthrow our government, in favor of a man caught on tape just four days ago trying to strong-arm a state election official into falsifying the election results.

Today the Confederate flag flew in the United States Capitol.

[Heather Cox Richardson is a Professor of History at Boston College. She has daily posts on Facebook that summarize the day's political events and puts them in historical context. The Facebook post link's first comment are her citations to sources.]

[citylightsbooks]

A Women’s History of City Lights: Interview with Nancy J. Peters

We'll be celebrating Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s 102nd birthday on March 24, and what better way to remember his legacy AND to mark Women’s History Month, than to honor Nancy J. Peters, Lawrence’s business partner, friend, and longtime comrade at City Lights Books. While Ferlinghetti certainly deserves all of the accolades he’s received, the fact of the matter is there would literally be no City Lights without Nancy Peters. Beyond shepherding City Lights through various fiscal crises and providing the steady anchor that allowed Ferlinghetti to travel the world as a poet and activist, Nancy's vision as an editor and acumen as a publisher were a vital key to the success and longevity of City Lights Publishers.

 ***

City Lights: How did you come to know what City Lights was? How did you meet Lawrence Ferlinghetti?

Nancy Peters: In Greece in the early 1960s, I became friends with Nanos Valaoritis and Marie Wilson who were at the center of an international bohemian/surrealist community. They had a large home which was always full of traveling writers and artists whom they made welcome. The Beat writers were among their guests, and City Lights was frequently talked about as a place everyone would meet up someday. I met Philip Lamantia there and in 1965 he introduced me to Lawrence in Paris at one of Jean-Jacque Lebel’s anarcho-surrealist festivals of free expression.  Before a riotous crowd Lawrence gave a show-stopping rendition of his “Lord’s Prayer.” I was impressed by his powerful stage presence. Later that year, when Philip and I were living in Andalusia, Lawrence wrote Philip, asking for a selection of poems for a Pocket Poets Series volume. We corresponded some while we were putting the book together, but I didn’t see him again until 1971 when I moved to San Francisco.

I’d been working as an executive-trainee librarian at the Library of Congress in the fall of 1968. In April, Martin Luther King was assassinated and the impassioned protests that ensued left Washington neighborhoods in ruins. There was shockingly little assistance to residents from the government and my part of the city was under military surveillance, helicopters hovering over my apartment through the night. A Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam took place in Washington the following year. Over 750,000 people peacefully demonstrated. In a small way, I was involved in the planning and, during the protests, my apartment was crammed with fellow activists.

The Library of Congress was an amazing, fascinating place with compatible co-workers from all over the world—thousands of book people all in one place. However, the mission of the Library is to serve Congress, and the institution was a huge conservative bureaucracy serving a conservative and ineffective Congress as I saw it. I believed that if I stayed there I would have little contact with actual books or opportunities for civic activism.

So I moved to San Francisco, where Philip was living and urging me to come, and spent an enormous amount of time at City Lights while I was job hunting. It seemed like paradise, such a stimulating atmosphere where people could sit down to read, share ideas, and have conversations about books, politics, art. One day in early 1971 when I was walking down the street in North Beach, Lawrence hailed me and asked if I would like to help him with a bibliography of Allen Ginsberg’s writings.  After just a brief meeting at the publishing office, Lawrence went to Europe and his editorial assistant Jan Herman suddenly decided to move to Germany. Jan showed me how all the editorial work was done in the office, told me Lawrence “wouldn’t mind,” and so I found myself beginning an exciting new career in publishing.

 What was your experience taking over as executive director and co-owner in 1984?

The store back then employed seven people: six men at the bookstore and one (me) at the publishing branch. So “executive director” is far too grand a title. City Lights was a small, failing organization by 1982. The store was not founded to make profits for the owners and it never did make a profit. Breaking even was the goal. But every year the losses mounted and there came a time when there were very few books left on the shelves. No one had seen a customer venture downstairs to the lower part of the store for many months.  

At the time, Lawrence was immensely popular and in great demand as a performer and a speaker, so he was traveling much of the time, visiting foreign colleagues, living abroad, finding new writers to translate. At this low point in the store’s history Lawrence told me in a frustrated moment that if I’d like to own City Lights, he would give it to me outright if I would run the business, freeing him to do all the other things he wanted to do. I declined, but told him I would be honored to be his partner. Theft was seriously addressed, and a protracted payment plan was agreed to by Book People, the East Bay employee-owned distributors who extended us credit for a generous period. Savvy booksellers Richard Berman and Paul Yamazaki headed the re-stocking plan. The three of us would go every week to Book People and Lou Swift Distributors to collect enough books to sell the following week. As time went on, everybody at the store consulted book catalogs and took on the responsibility for buying subject sections. I envisioned a participatory structure. If not a co-op, I wanted a bookstore where all the staff had responsibilities and power.

Why the decision not to have multiple bookstore locations around SF?

At one time we seriously considered additional locations. We explored sites in San Francisco’s Mission district and visited city officials in San Jose to talk about a second store there. But our resources were limited, and we were concerned about the time and money that would be required to create a sister store that would embody the same spirit and ethic as the original. During my time as director, the evolving challenges from chain stores and especially Amazon made beginning a new store a very risky enterprise. In retrospect, so many independents were closing that we decided to invest in our present, iconic location. In retrospect I think it was a good decision after watching attempts by other stores fail to duplicate their success elsewhere.

How has North Beach changed, how has it stayed the same? With the exodus of Big Tech and falling rents, how do you think that will affect North Beach and San Francisco in general in the future? Will there be “a rebirth of wonder”?

North Beach when I came to SF was a small bohemian village, where neighbors shared meals on their flat rooftops watching the sun set over the Bay. My rent was $125 a month, cheap even then. City Lights and the Discovery Bookstore (used books) next door to Vesuvio were key places to spend an evening. Two large Italian grocers delivered (no charge) bags of groceries up four flights of stairs to my apartment. The neighborhood was full of inexpensive Basque, Italian, and Chinese restaurants, and many cafes, many of which seemed unchanged since the 19th century. Change happens, and City Lights is well prepared for the future. It’s never easy to predict how things will develop, but the feeling of a lovely Mediterranean town persists, with the wooden buildings painted pastel colors, and the shimmering sea light on misty days. I feel certain that the light of City Lights will prevail for a long time to come.

 Do you feel that your gender had any impact on your experience during your 23 years as director? Do you have any comments about women in bookselling or publishing in general?

Gender always has an impact. The Beat movement was certainly male focused. Even though the undaunted Diane di Prima was recognized, she was never enthusiastically supported by the inner nucleus of Beat poets. It was a long time before the Beat women came into their own. From the start, Lawrence, who insisted he wasn’t a Beat, had eclectic tastes and was open to women’s poetry. He admired Marianne Moore and Edna St. Vincent Millay as much as he did T.S. Eliot, Jacques Prévert, and Allen Ginsberg. In the Pocket Poets Series, he’d published di Prima and, very early in the series, both Marie Ponsot and Denise Levertov.

Women’s rights and opportunities are always vulnerable and cyclic. The Women’s Movement of the 1970s was very powerful and widespread, its impact on women’s lives enormous. At City Lights we hired more women; we published more women. There have always been outstanding women in publishing and bookselling, and during that time increasingly more women writers were published, reviewed, and were given accolades and awards. Women opened general bookstores and women’s bookstores, founded feminist and lesbian presses. It was a thrilling development, to see so many marginalized writers, and not just women, finding established publishers or creating their own presses. Together they created a larger, much more diverse national literature.

I’ve had the pleasure of working with many talented women at the bookstore. And in the publishing branch: Stella Levy, Kim McCloud, and Patricia Fujii. Gail Chiarello collected and edited our bestselling Bukowski stories. Annie Janowitz proposed the timely Unamerican Activities, and Amy Scholder brought us classics by Karen Finley, Rebecca Brown, and others. I’m happy to say that Amy Scholder is again working with City Lights as an editor.

When did you meet the now current publisher and executive director Elaine Katzenberger? What was her position at the bookstore? When did you know that she was the right person to take over as director?

Ah, Elaine, the woman who can do everything! Elaine began at the bookstore sales counter, then reorganized files and the store accounts, and very soon excelled as a book buyer. She had a great feeling for good writing, so I asked her to become an editor and she immediately began adding excellent books to City Lights’ list. She’s smart, witty, multitalented, and politically astute. We are very lucky to have her at the helm.

What is your understanding or vision of what of City Lights is and what it could be? How has Lawrence’s passing impacted this?

Lawrence’s democratic inclusiveness made him the best-selling poet in the U.S. His moral principles, his courage and resilience are a model to be emulated. He conceived City Lights as an educational institution that would open minds to explore and relate to the world through books. “One guy told me he’d got the equivalent of a Ph. D just sitting in the basement reading all our great books,” he often reminded us.

His “literary gathering place” was to be a fulcrum of San Francisco cultural experience, where our bookselling and publishing could amplify the voices of diverse experiences, connect with other creative communities, and serve as a center of dissent and, at the same time, a force for creating a better society.

Lawrence’s vision will continue to be our guiding light. An optimistic realist, he believed that City Lights would long endure as the co-creation of all the dedicated people who work here and make it what it is.

[victory-rose]

January 6, 2021 (Wednesday)

Today the Confederate flag flew in the United States Capitol.

This morning, results from the Georgia senatorial runoff elections showed that Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff had beaten their Republican opponents—both incumbents—by more than the threshold that would require a recount. The Senate is now split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats, so the position of majority leader goes to a Democrat. Mitch McConnell, who has bent the government to his will since he took over the position of majority leader in 2007, will be replaced.

With the Democrats in control of both Congress and the Executive Branch, it is reasonable to expect we will see voting rights legislation, which will doom the current-day Republican Party, depending as it has on voter suppression to stay in power.

Trump Republicans and McConnell Republicans had just begun to blame each other for the debacle when Congress began to count the certified electoral votes from the states to establish that Democrat Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. The election was not close—Biden won the popular vote by more than 7 million votes and the Electoral College by 306 to 232—but Trump contends that he won the election in a landslide and “fraud” made Biden the winner.

Trump has never had a case. His campaign filed and either lost or had dismissed 62 out of 63 lawsuits because it could produce no evidence for any of its wild accusations. Nonetheless, radical lawmakers courted Trump’s base by echoing Trump’s charges, then tried to argue that the fact voters no longer trusted the vote was reason to contest the certified votes.

More than 100 members of the House announced they would object to counting the votes of certain states. About 13 senators, led by Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), agreed to join them. The move would slow down the count as each chamber would have to debate and take a separate vote on whether to accept the state votes, but the objectors never had anywhere near the votes they needed to make their objections stick.

So Trump turned to pressuring Vice President Mike Pence, who would preside over the counting, to throw out the Biden votes. On Monday, Trump tweeted that “the Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.” This would throw the blame for the loss onto Pence, but the vice president has no constitutional power to do any such thing, and this morning he made that clear in a statement. Trump then tweeted that Pence “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”

It seemed clear that the voting would be heated, but it was also clear that most of the lawmakers opposing the count were posturing to court Trump’s base for future elections. Congress would count Biden’s win.

But Trump had urged his supporters for weeks to descend on Washington, D.C., to stop what he insisted was the stealing of the election. They did so and, this morning, began to congregate near the Capitol, where the counting would take place. As he passed them on the east side of the Capitol, Hawley raised a power fist.

In the middle of the day, Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani spoke to the crowd, telling them: “Let’s have trial by combat.” Trump followed, lying that he had won the election and saying “we are going to have to fight much harder.” He warned that Pence had better “come through for us, and if he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country.” He warned that Chinese-driven socialists are taking over the country. And he told them to march on Congress to “save our democracy.”

As rioters took Trump at his word, Congress was counting the votes alphabetically by state. When they got to Arizona, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) stood up to echo the rhetoric radicals had been using to discredit the certified votes, saying that public distrust in the election—created out of thin air by Republicans—justified an investigation.

Within an hour, a violent mob stormed the Capitol and Cruz, along with the rest of the lawmakers, was rushed to safety (four quick-thinking staffers brought along the electoral ballots, in their ceremonial boxes). As the rioters broke in, police shot and killed one of them: Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran from San Diego, QAnon believer, and staunch Trump supporter. The insurrectionists broke into the Senate chamber, where one was photographed on the dais of the Senate, shirtless and wearing a bull costume that revealed a Ku Klux Klan tattoo on his abdomen. They roamed the Capitol looking for Pence and other lawmakers they considered enemies. Not finding them, they ransacked offices. One rioter photographed himself sitting at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk with his feet on it.

They carried with them the Confederate flag.

Capitol police provided little obstruction, apparently eager to avoid confrontations that could be used as propaganda on social media. The intruders seemed a little surprised at their success, taking selfies and wandering around like tourists. One stole a lectern.

As the White House, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Department of Homeland Security all remained silent, President-Elect Joe Biden spoke to cameras urging calm and calling on Trump to tell his supporters to go home. But CNN White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins later reported that she spoke to White House officials who were “genuinely freaked… out” that Trump was “borderline enthusiastic” about the storming of the Capitol because “it meant the certification was being derailed.”

At 4:17, Trump issued his own video, reiterating his false claims that he had been cheated of victory. Only then did he conclude with: “Go home, we love you, you’re very special.” Twitter immediately took the video down. By nighttime Trump’s Twitter feed seemed to blame his enemies for the violence the president had incited (although the rhythm of the words did not sound to me like Trump’s own usual cadence): “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

Twitter took down the tweet and banned the president for at least twelve hours for inciting violence; Facebook and Instagram followed suit.

As the afternoon wore on, police found two pipe bombs near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C., as well as a truck full of weapons and ammunition, and mobs gathered at statehouses across the country, including in Kansas, Ohio, Minnesota, California, and Georgia.

By 5:00, acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller issued a statement saying he had conferred with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, Vice President Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and had fully activated the D.C. National Guard.

He did not mention the president.

By late evening, Washington, D.C., police chief Robert J. Contee III announced that at least 52 people had been arrested and 14 law enforcement officers injured. A total of four people died, including one who died of a heart attack and one who tased themself.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone urged people to stay away from Trump to limit their chances of being prosecuted for treason under the Sedition Act. By midnight, four staffers had resigned, as well as Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger, with other, higher level officials also talking about leaving. Even Trump adviser Stephen Miller admitted it was a bad day. Quickly, pro-Trump media began to insist that the attack was a false-flag operation of “Antifa,” despite the selfies and videos posted by known right-wing agitators, and the fact that Trump had invited, incited, and praised them.

Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis laid the blame for today’s attack squarely at the feet of Trump himself: “Today’s violent assault on our Capitol, and effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule, was fomented by Mr. Trump. His use of the Presidency to destroy trust in our election and to poison our respect for fellow citizens has been enabled by pseudo political leaders whose names will live in infamy as profiles in cowardice.”

The attempted coup drew condemnation from all but the radical Trump supporters in government. Former President George W. Bush issued a statement “on insurrection at the Capitol,” saying “it is a sickening and heartbreaking sight.” “I am appalled by the reckless behavior of some political leaders since the election,” he said, and accused such leaders of enflaming the rioters with lies and false hopes. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) was more direct: “What happened here today was an insurrection incited by the President of the United States.”

Across the country tonight are calls for Trump’s removal through the 25th amendment, impeachment, or resignation. The Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have joined the chorus, writing to Pence urging him to invoke the 25th. Angry at Trump’s sabotaging of the Georgia elections in addition to the attack on our democracy, prominent Republicans are rumored to be doing the same.

At 8:00, heavily armed guards escorted the lawmakers back to the Capitol, thoroughly scrubbed by janitors, where the senators and representatives resumed their counting of the certified votes. The events of the afternoon had broken some of the Republicans away from their determination to challenge the votes. Fourteen Republican senators had announced they would object to counting the certified votes from Arizona; in the evening count the number dropped to six: Cruz (R-TX), Hawley (R-MO), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), John Kennedy (R-LA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL).

In the House, 121 Republicans, more than half the Republican caucus, voted to throw out Biden’s electors from Arizona. As in the Senate, they lost when 303 Representatives voted in favor.

Six senators and more than half of the House Republicans backed an attempt to overthrow our government, in favor of a man caught on tape just four days ago trying to strong-arm a state election official into falsifying the election results.

Today the Confederate flag flew in the United States Capitol.