Every once in a while, some conservative dweeb gets upset at the fact that liberal women do not like conservative men and definitely don’t want to have sex with them. It’s a tiresome trope that the promoters of “solutions” never think through. The latest victim of this nonsense is the editorial board of the Washington Post, who noticed that people with clashing political views don’t want to have anything to do with each other. OH NOES. Society will collapse.

This ideology gap is particularly pronounced among Gen Z White people. According to a major new American Enterprise Institute survey, 46 percent of White Gen Z women are liberal, compared to only 28 percent of White Gen Z men, more of whom (36 percent) now identify as conservative. Norms around sexuality and gender are diverging, too. Whereas 61 percent of Gen Z women see themselves as feminist, only 43 percent of Gen Z men do. It is little surprise that the “manfluencers” — particularly those such as British American kickboxer Andrew Tate who promote outright misogyny — have their biggest following among boys and young men.

The authors are oblivious to what they are saying. Feminism is not comparable to Andrew Tate — one is advocating for autonomy and equality, the other is a criminal sex trafficker who treats women as chattel. These poles in the dichotomy are not at all equivalent in any way. The Editorial Board ought to be deploring the brutalization of young men by Andrew Tate, rather than treating it as just an attitude like feminism, not calling it something as anodyne as a “dilemma” requiring a compromise. No, it does not. Just tell the Tate wannabes to fuck off. Only they don’t.

This mismatch means that someone will need to compromise. As the researchers Lyman Stone and Brad Wilcox have noted, about 1 in 5 young singles will have little choice but to marry someone outside their ideological tribe. The other option is that they decline to get married at all — not an ideal outcome considering the data showing that marriage is good for the health of societies and individuals alike. (This, of course, is on average; marriage isn’t for everyone. Nor is staying in a physically or emotionally abusive marriage ever the right choice. But, on the whole, while politically mixed couples report somewhat lower levels of satisfaction than same-party couples, they are still likely to be happier than those who remain single.)

The marriage dilemma reflects a broader societal one: whether people can find ways to adapt to a new normal of ideological and political polarization, instead of hoping — against all evidence — that it will dissipate. Unfortunately, Americans have not equipped themselves to discuss, debate and reason across these divides. Americans have increasingly sorted themselves according to ideological orientation. They are working, living and socializing with people who think the same things they do. Particularly on college campuses, a culture of seeking sameness has set up young Americans for disappointment. They expect people to share their own convictions and commitments. But people’s insight and understanding about the world often come from considering alternative perspectives that may at first seem odd or offensive.

Oh those crazy college campuses, where young people get the insane idea that they can think for themselves and don’t have to submit to the demands of the olds. You know, if you’re going to marry someone for life, it’s not at all unreasonable to marry someone who shares your own “convictions and commitments.” Why are you dating and spending time with them otherwise?

One might wonder how the Editorial Board would resolve their “dilemma,” and who is expected to “compromise”. Easy. Teach people to ignore these differences.

A cultural shift might be necessary — one that views politics as a part of people’s identity but far from the most important part. Americans’ ability to live together, quite literally, might depend on it.

Gosh. That man who wants to date you, who believes women are inferior and must be put in their place with a good beat-down? Just pay no attention to that minor character flaw. After all, he’s willing to overlook your belief in cooperation and partnership and mutual respect. For the good of the nation, you must have sex with him and bear his children!

I had to wonder what kind of cretins populate an “editorial board” and what they think they’re doing. Here it is:

Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through discussion among members of the Editorial Board: Opinion Editor David Shipley, Deputy Opinion Editor Charles Lane and Deputy Opinion Editor Stephen Stromberg, as well as writers Mary Duenwald, Christine Emba, Shadi Hamid, David E. Hoffman, James Hohmann, Heather Long, Mili Mitra, Eduardo Porter, Keith B. Richburg and Molly Roberts.

The board highlights issues it thinks are important and responds to news events, mindful of stands it has taken in previous editorials and principles that have animated Post Editorial Boards over time. Articles in the news pages sometimes prompt ideas for editorials, but every editorial is based on original reporting. News reporters and editors never contribute to Editorial Board discussions, and Editorial Board members don’t have any role in news coverage.

I don’t know who any of those people are, but I do know that I don’t give a flying fuck about the “Washington Post as an institution.” Buncha entitled assholes is what they are.

---

For a more amusing take, read Wives In Stepford Increasingly Don’t Want To Be Replaced By Robots.

Bill Ackman is a hedge-fund billionaire who was very concerned that an MIT professor allowed a student to promote a pro-Palestine rally. He’s more worried about denying Palestinian civil rights than he is about known sexual harassers in the classroom, though.

Ackman is a major supporter of David Sabatini to the tune of millions of dollars per year. Sabatini, you may recall, was fired twice from major institutions and his attempt to be hired by NYU was aborted by huge demonstrations by the faculty and students there. He is not a good guy. He ran a party lab for dudebros.

In 2021, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute fired Sabatini, and the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research forced him out after an investigation by an outside law firm found he violated the institute’s sexual harassment and relationship policies. That investigation found that Sabatini conducted a clandestine sexual relationship with a woman scientist and asked her to meet him for sex on institute grounds. At the time, he was mentoring her in a program he directed while she launched a lab at the Whitehead. The investigation also found, among other behavior, that he created a lab culture that rewarded sexualized banter; implicitly threatened a faculty member who refused to make a place in his lab for a visiting woman scientist whom Sabatini later married; and created a “pervasive” fear of retaliation, for example implying there would be career consequences for lab members who reported unfavorably on him to the outside investigators or who discussed rumors that he was sexually pursuing a woman undergraduate from another institution.

I figured that with three strikes he was finally out, no matter how much money a rich boob threw his way. I even made a prediction: “He’ll go get a job in construction or pharmaceutical sales and we won’t have to worry about his unpleasant influence on academia anymore.”

I was wrong, so wrong. He’s starting up a new lab in Prague.

David Sabatini, the high-flying biologist who lost positions at three prominent U.S. institutions after breaching sexual misconduct policies, last month began a new job as a senior scientist at the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry Prague (IOCB), a powerful arm of the Czech Academy of Sciences (CAS). The hire has divided Czech scientists and is likely to ignite debate about whether and when institutions should give second chances to those who commit sexual misconduct.

He’s like an antibiotic-resistant venereal disease. He keeps flaring up when you least expect it, and when you think you’ve finally beaten it back.

IOCB Director Jan Konvalinka said in a statement: “We believe that [Sabatini] has been punished enough for his previous actions and that the research community will be served best if this brilliant scientist returns to research.” He added that IOCB “will require that Dr. Sabatini follows the same high standards of conduct and respectful behavior that is expected from every other principal investigator.”

Yeah, that’s what the Whitehead, MIT, and NYU all said, too. When will people learn that “high standards of conduct and respectful behavior” aren’t in his repertoire?

Probably about the time that rich Republican jerks stop bankrolling him, I bet.

Now I’m just making myself depressed.

This is Bubba Copeland. He was the Republican mayor of a small town in Alabama, and also the pastor of a Baptist church…about the last person I’d identify with in this country.

He was recently exposed as a human being.

Copeland’s private life was exposed Wednesday by the conservative blog 1819 News, which was once owned by the right-wing Alabama Policy Institute and whose top editor is a former Breitbart News contributor.

That post, written by Craig Monger, had the rambling headline: The secret life of Smiths Station Mayor and Baptist pastor F.L. ‘Bubba’ Copeland as a ‘transgender curvy girl’: ‘It’s a hobby I do to relieve stress’.

1819 News published the username to Copeland’s Reddit and Instagram accounts, writing that he posed “in various outfits, some more racy than others.” The blog also said that Copeland used the pseudonym “Brittini Blaire Summerlin” and posted pornography and advice on chemically transitioning.

All of that is perfectly fine, carried out privately in his own home, and none of anyone else’s business. He wasn’t forcing himself on anyone, and you needed to seek out his internet presence. But of course, he was outed by a hateful conservative blog, and then the town made it it’s business.

Copeland’s extracurricular activities quickly turned into a community-wide controversy. His church referred to “unbiblical behavior” in a statement, and Copeland reportedly told his parishioners that the article did not represent “who or what I am.” He added that it would “not cause my life to change.”

“This will not waver my devotion to my family, serving my city, serving my church,” Copeland said Wednesday before giving his final sermon, which was live streamed online.

Copeland, who was married, said he was the subject of an “internet attack.” He added that “a lot of things were taken out of context” and that “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people” had reached out to offer their support for him.

“Yes, I have taken pictures with my wife in the privacy of our home in an attempt of humor because I know I’m not a handsome man nor a beautiful woman, either,” he said. “I apologize for any embarrassment caused by my private, personal life.”

Like I said…this is a Republican and a Baptist politician in Alabama? He just humanized himself to me, at least. Good for you, Bubba! He’s breaking stereotypes.

Except, you know this wasn’t going to have a happy ending.

The uproar took a tragic turn on Friday, when Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones said that deputies who tried to pull Copeland over for a welfare check witnessed Copeland step out of his car and shoot himself.

The person who ought to be deeply ashamed of himself is this Craig Monger, a “journalist” on a hate blog who has written multiple articles on this disgraceful “exposé”. Here’s what he looks like.

You know, just in case you see him in the street and want to spit in his face.

The other day, I mentioned that a few people were protesting the cancellation of a panel session at a meeting of the American Anthropological Association and the Canadian Anthropology Society. The first clue that the session was intended to be something unpleasant is that the cancellation outraged Kathleen Stock, the anti-trans advocate who lost her professorship because she was such a big fan of conversion therapy, opposed the idea of gender self-identification, and was a trustee of the LGB Alliance, that group that openly repudiated the idea of trans rights. I’d be wary of support from such a person.

Then I learned further that the panel was a collection of gender critical feminists (the new term for TERFs) who were going to use the panel for their ideological propaganda from Elizabeth Weiss! I’m doubly wary now. Weiss was an anthropologist at San Jose State University who hated the idea of repatriating the bones in their collection, and stirred up a major row after being photographed making light of the remains.

She had claimed she was the target of cancel culture after being blasted for tweeting a photo of herself returning to campus following COVID lockdowns in the fall of 2021, holding a skull with her bare hands and writing: “So happy to be back with some old friends.”

She had already been the subject of criticism over her recently published book — “Repatriation and Erasing the Past” — that opposed laws returning skeletal remains to Native American tribes when 870 academics from Stanford to Oxford denounced it as “explicitly racist ideology.”

In the midst of the backlash, San Jose State University Provost Vincent Del Casino Jr., posted a letter to faculty saying the image of Weiss holding the skull “evoked shock and disgust” and asked, “in what context is it ever ethically appropriate for an academic to handle remains while smiling with ungloved hands while calling these remains ‘friends?’”

In an emailed response to the provost, Weiss wrote that her tweet was showing her admiration for the collection: “We should be celebrating the lives of these first occupants of Silicon Valley — not allowing their voices to be silenced by a vociferous campaign orchestrated by woke activists whose strategy is to try to shut down debate, and promote superstition over science.”

If you’re “celebrating the lives,” why is it that the native peoples whose ancestors you’re treating so cavalierly are complaining? I would think that sensitivity and respect are important parts of your training and work. I guess Ms. Weiss was absent that decade in class. Furthermore, Weiss was the third wife of J. Philippe Rushton, the infamous racist and face of the Pioneer Fund. I can tell whose side she would be on — marrying a prominent racist is a loud commitment to a repugnant point of view.

Are you beginning to see a theme here? You don’t have to scratch a gender critical very deeply to find a fascist.

But wait, there’s more! The organizer of the conference panel was Kathleen Lowry, a proud gender critical feminist whose anti-trans views have been protested.

“The university has said it’s perfectly OK to fire people for doubting that men can get pregnant, for doubting lesbians can have penises,” she said. “The implications are very dangerous because this is a live issue in our contemporary Canadian democracy.”

She was not fired, by the way. She was removed from a university committee, nothing more, which is something many of us would consider a reward.

I think you can see why the panel was dissolved, though. The conference organizers could clearly see that they were going to be platforming a crew of notorious bigots who would be assembling a bomb on stage, that they would be facilitating an ugly exercise in one-sided anti-trans prejudice that would definitely do harm to other attendees at the event.

I don’t feel like being fair to Weiss and her cronies, but I will note that she has expressed her perspective on the cancellation online, at a page titled “Discussing sex is no longer allowed at anthropology conferences”. I will note that even the title is dishonest, since sex is a legitimate topic in anthropology — what isn’t is inflammatory bias and the rhetoric of hate.

The one good thing to emerge from this repugnant episode is that the anthropological society has published a beautiful statement explaining their decision titled “No Place For Transphobia in Anthropology”.

The AAA and CASCA boards reached a decision to remove the session “Let’s Talk about Sex Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology” from the AAA/CASCA 2023 conference program. This decision was based on extensive consultation and was reached in the spirit of respect for our values, in order to ensure the safety and dignity of all of our members, as well as the scientific integrity of the program.

The first ethical principle in AAA’s Principles of Professional Responsibility is to “Do no harm.” The session was rejected because it relied on assumptions that run contrary to the settled science in our discipline, framed in ways that do harm to vulnerable members of our community. It commits one of the cardinal sins of scholarship—it assumes the truth of the proposition that it sets out to prove, namely, that sex and gender are simplistically binary, and that this is a fact with meaningful implications for the discipline.

Such efforts contradict scientific evidence, including the wealth of anthropological scholarship on gender and sex. Forensic anthropologists talk about using bones for “sex estimation,” not “sex identification,” a process that is probabilistic rather than clearly determinative, and that is easily influenced by cognitive bias on the part of the researcher. Around the world and throughout human history, there have always been people whose gender roles do not align neatly with their reproductive anatomy. There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification. On the contrary, anthropologists and others have long shown sex and gender to be historically and geographically contextual, deeply entangled, and dynamically mutable categories.

The function of the “gender critical” scholarship advocated in this session, like the function of the “race science” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is to advance a “scientific” reason to question the humanity of already marginalized groups of people, in this case, those who exist outside a strict and narrow sex / gender binary.

Transgender and gender diverse identities have long existed, and we are committed to upholding the value and dignity of transgender people. We believe that a more just future is possible—one where gender diversity is welcomed and supported rather than marginalized and policed.

I’m already seeing people trying to argue against that statement that “There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification,” largely by insisting that their standard, whatever it may be, is definitive, by definition. I’ve seen this strategy used for decades: first it was morphology, they can tell who is a woman by looking at them; then it was X/Y chromosomes; then it was hormone titers; now many of the bigots have congealed around a definition based on gametes. They never seem to appreciate that the variety of arbitrary ‘standards’ are often in conflict with each other, or that many of them are outright invisible or dependent on invasive and offensive examinations. Do you determine the ‘biological sex’ of people you meet by asking for a sperm sample? I would hope not.

I like the comparison of “gender criticals” to “race scientists”. It’s particularly apt given that at least one of the people behind this panel is a closet race scientist herself.

A few medical students in Duluth are very unhappy with what they’re being taught.

My days were filled with so many lectures and guidelines that I knew were not right or ordered at all and they were most definitely against our beliefs as Catholics, wrote Emma Pero, the first president of the group, in an essay on the site.

How do you know they’re not right or ordered? You’re a student. You’re there to learn. Duluth is a good school, it’s not a Bible college, I’m pretty sure they’re not telling you what to believe, they’re teaching practices that have been empirically demonstrated to be beneficial. Of course we know how she knows they’re wrong, the hint is right their in the quote: she’s Catholic, and a far right conservative Catholic at that.

So what were they teaching her that was not right? That’s pretty clear, too.

A Catholic group for students at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Duluth that opposes gender-affirming care is fracturing the small, rural-focused program.

The student section of the Catholic Medical Association, which also includes students enrolled in the U’s Duluth campus College of Pharmacy, formed in 2021. It aligns with Catholic beliefs that largely oppose gender-affirming care for minors, which includes medications to suppress puberty and hormones for older teens, as well as contraception and abortion, according to its website.

The group is called St. Raphael’s Guild, and these students are heeding the words of old men in funny hats rather than the words of the experienced medical professionals who are their actual professors. They plan to graduate with medical degrees and then scatter to small medical practices across the rural Midwest, where, in addition to refusing to administer health care to trans teens, they will oppose birth control and abortion. They are the worst.

The Duluth medical school is also clear on what students should learn. This is cautiously sensible.

The school teaches its students to care for patients of all backgrounds, he said, and its approach to controversial topics is to teach them to transfer patients to another provider if they must, but to always ensure the patient receives care.

“Our hope is that message gets carried on and that students take that to heart and put it into practice,” Diebel said.

To second-year medical student Jamey Sharp, it appears the group is “working against best practices” that students are taught regarding LGBTQ care, and it makes class uncomfortable, he said.

“It’s really important for trans folks, queer folks, women, to feel comfortable working in this field and feeling like they would be safe and free of discrimination throughout the educational process,” he said.

The St Raphael’s Guild students strongly disagree. They bring in fanatical Catholic weirdos with dubious credentials who explicitly argue against the best practices taught by the school.

In 2022, members of the student group gathered in a conference room to watch a virtual lecture held by the guild. It featured Dr. Quentin Van Meter, a controversial Atlanta-based pediatric endocrinologist who in 2020 was discredited by a Texas court as an expert on puberty blockers and gender-affirming care.

He is the former president of the American College of Pediatricians, a group declared to be a hate organization by the civil rights nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center.

During the lecture, he called the Southern Poverty Law Center a hate group and told the room full of students that professional medical societies, most of which support gender care, don’t represent science.

He argued against using preferred pronouns with patients.

This is just acquiescing to nonsense and pathology and plays into their delusional thoughts, he said in a recording of the lecture.

He advised avoiding referring minors to transgender care centers, calling them a conveyor belt to hell. Affirming a child’s chosen gender can worsen mental health, he told the students, who should refer minors instead to mental health providers.

Gosh. “acquiescing to nonsense and pathology and plays into their delusional thoughts” sounds like an apt description of Catholic zealotry.

I’ve always thought of the University of Minnesota Duluth to be an excellent branch of the system I’m in, with both a well-regarded medical school and pharmacy school. We send graduates of my university there every year. I guess I still have to be wary of some of the doctors that come out of there.

It was over 10 years ago that feminist man and professor of gender studies Hugo Schwyzer revealed his true colors, admitting that he’d had sex with his students, and worse. It was a dramatic and abrupt fall from grace, and even as he was plummeting to his doom, he was trying to schmooze his way back into leftist circles.

My behavior with students from 1996-98 was unacceptable for a male feminist and, for that matter, an ethical person. The question is whether the penalty for that ought to be a lifetime ban from teaching gender studies, or writing about the subjects I write about. Some feminists feel yes, it should be. I disagree, but only because so many wonderful feminist mentors of mine have encouraged me to stay in this work.

Ick. Ooze all the slime you want, we can see right through you.

He did not fall wailing all the way into Hell, but he came close. He’s writing for The Federalist now. He’s defending Lauren Boebert and arguing that women have historically been happy to marry young and get pregnant right away, and that abortion is wrong, and that leftists are all hedonistic degenerates. It is virtuous to get married at 16 and to be a grandmother in your 30s, he thinks…and it may very well be a good and satisfying thing for some women, but not all women. Lauren Boebert just made a mistake, and wasn’t at all acting like his imaginary left-wing self-indulgent sex fiends.

At that Denver theater, Boebert had a foolish human moment. She has rightly apologized. That should be the end of it. But because she is a conservative, and because her life and her politics give witness to her pro-life convictions, her apology is insufficient.

Rather, she must be shamed over and over again. We must see that surveillance video of her fumblings a hundred times a day. And her ordinary human frailties must somehow be connected to her deepest convictions so her embarrassment becomes an occasion to smear those who share the congresswoman’s commitment to the unborn.

As cruel and dishonest as the mockery of Boebert is, it is even worse that the left uses this incident to peddle a basic lie about human happiness. Someone is indeed robbing people of their youth, but it isn’t conservatives doing the robbing. The thieves are those who preach the lie that self-indulgence and experimentation are pathways to fulfillment rather than despair.

First of all, nobody needs to see that video a hundred times a day. I saw it once, and that was enough. It says something about Hugo that he’s watching it that many times.

Secondly, the Left isn’t preaching lies about self-indulgence and experimentation. The idea is that, instead, women should have the same freedoms men have, the same opportunities to pursue a fulfilling life that isn’t necessarily just having lots of babies as soon as they can. I have classes full of young women (that I’m not abusing sexually, so maybe Schwyzer can’t identify) who are thinking about careers in science, who are doing science, and who are aware that a pregnancy would derail all those plans. Fortunately, they are also smart enough to know about birth control and abortion, not because they want to live frivolously, but because they are hoping for the opposite, a serious and productive life that isn’t controlled by men.

On a happier note, the article closes with a brief biography.

Hugo Schwyzer was a professor of history and gender studies at Pasadena City College from 1993-2013. He is now a ghostwriter living in Los Angeles.

Buh-bye, Hugo. I hope you too are living a fruitful and fulfilling life, but the fact that you are reduced to writing for the Federalist suggests otherwise.

Imagine you are a big prestigious university, with a gigantic endowment — about $13 billion at last count. You have 35,000 students. You are almost 270 years old. You are private, so you’re less subject to the whims of the state congress. You are doing great! Then one of your employees, a gynecologist, does this:

Six weeks after giving birth to a daughter, on a Friday in late June 2012, Kanyok returned to Columbia’s suite of offices on East 60th Street for a checkup. She looked idly at her phone as Hadden examined her. He assured her that all looked good, and the nurse chaperoning the exam left the room. Hadden started to follow her out. Then he paused, turned, and told Kanyok that he’d forgotten to check her stitches. He instructed her to lie down again.

Beneath the paper blanket covering her knees, between her legs, the assault this time was unmistakable. Kanyok jolted back and saw Hadden’s face surface, bright red. She froze as he chattered nervously and performed what he told her was a breast exam. She texted her boyfriend. “Dr Hadden just licked my vagina,” she typed. “I’m shaking And freaked out.”

By the way, the breast exam seems to have been a frequent escape hatch for Hadden. These were two-handed, full-on naked fondling sessions, but they served to distract the patient from whatever he’d been doing below the waste.

Another incident:

She says that as she was lying on the examination table, Hadden rubbed his erect penis on her arm. Stunned and shaken, she told a receptionist that Hadden was a pervert. She recalls that the receptionist replied, “I know” and “I’m sorry.”

Now if I were a major university, I’d work fast — I need to protect the reputation of the college! I would fire that guy so fast, with cause, that he wouldn’t even have time to lick the doorknobs on the way out.

Not Columbia University! They were so concerned about their reputation that they buried the incident, all of the incidents, for 20 years. He was out there practicing pervert’s version of gynecology under Columbia’s imprimatur for decades, while the university hid all these abuses over and over. Once a patient called the cops on him, had him arrested, and a few days after he was released from jail, and the university put him back to work licking and fondling young women.

Eventually, the law caught up with this predator. He and the university were prosecuted, and Hadden got a 20 year prison sentence while Columbia was served with a $71.5 million settlement to 79 victims.

So how did that strategy to protect your reputation work out, Columbia?