So I said #20... for May 2-15

Yet another collection of comments and thoughts I’ve posted here there and everywhere. Any reactions or questions or whatever are always welcome.

I aim to sorta more or less kinda do one of these every week (or so) but it really depends on when I have enough to make it worth reading. This time of year is hard for me for personal reasons I will not inflict on you, so the schedule might be kinda stretched. Just remember it is worth at least what you paid for it. :-)

That said, on we go.

== 

2026-04-28
[One I missed from last time, about Trump as “a successful businessman” in response to a post about a filing “sounding like a Truth Social post.”]

“Successful businessmen don’t claim bankruptcy SIX TIMES on other people’s money.”

Actually, that’s the best way to declare bankruptcy. :-)

And as long as the suckers keep investing, he’ll keep peddling the BS, grabbing whatever profits he can before it does under, and letting others take the losses. He’s still doing it.

==

2026-05-03
[A video about contranyms, words that can have contradictory meanings (think “clip” meaning both “cut” and “attach”), used as one example “quite.”]

The bit about “quite good” meaning either “passable” or “excellent” depending on delivery raises the (not really related to the topic but I’m going to raise anyway) issue of the significance of inflection in language. I recall a museum program I was involved in, in which one part referred to the sentence “What are you doing?” and how the meaning changed depending on which word was stressed. The idea being expressed in each case, as in the cases of “quite good” and some others, was in more than the words alone.

==

2026-05-08
[The FTC demanded extensive records from the Endocrine Society and WPATH re trans health care, including identifying information about those who have received treatment. A comment: “I suppose the next step for the FTC is to file these cases in the Fifth Circuit so they end up in front of Judge Kacsmaryk.”]

That, they can’t do. This was in the DC District Court so an appeal would go to the DC Court of Appeals. Despite my cynicism, I can’t imagine that even the 5th CCoA would take an appeal from a case in a different circuit.

They could try to re-file the case from scratch in the 5th Circuit, but even that would face a hard-to-refuse motion for change of venue because the agency is in DC.

-

2026-05-08
[That’s what they did with a hospital in Rhode Island - got a subpoena in Texas.]

Not exactly. As I understand it, what happened there is that the DOJ issued a subpoena and both sought and got an order to enforce it all on the same day (April 30). They technically could file for that order anywhere since it’s a new order unrelated to an existing suit.

It’s true that the Texas court could and should have said “You filed this in the wrong place. Go away.” But what matters here is that this is not a case of trying to appeal a district court ruling in a different circuit.

What’s happening in the other case is that the subpoena itself is being challenged in the federal district court for Rhode Island. If that court issues an injunction (which, as the brief notes, seven other courts have done with similar demands), an appeal would have to go to the 1st CCoA, not the 5th.

As a sidebar, I was amused to see that the filing by the ACLU on behalf of the Child Advocate for RI used the Skrmetti decision against the DOJ, noting that in it (quoting the filing) “the Supreme Court reaffirmed that ‘[w]e afford States “wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty,”’ including specifically in the area of medical care for gender dysphoria.”

In other words, the ACLU is arguing that the DOJ is trying to deny Rhode Island the very latitude that Skremetti allowed it.

-

2026-05-13
[Don’t think that will stop 5th circuit. How do they get to rule on that Rhode Island case?]

Sorry for the delayed response; I’ve been out of it of late.

I thought I was clear but apparently I wasn’t, so I’ll try again.

First, I’ll give the “I’m not a lawyer” speech so there may be subtleties and sneaky moves available of which I’m unaware, but that said, I’m confident I’ve got the basics right.

Okay. There are two things here: the subpoena and the order to enforce it. They came out of the notorious Northern District of Texas. That court could have (and reasonably should have) said the motion to obtain the order was filed in the wrong venue - but it didn’t. No surprise there.

So if there was to be some appeal of the enforcement order on some grounds like it was overly broad or didn’t allow enough time to comply or whatever, that would be in the 5th Circuit, since that’s where it was issued.

HOWEVER, another rather common course is to move to quash the subpoena itself. Such a motion has been filed in federal court in Rhode Island along with the argument that this is the proper venue (which it would certainly appear to be). If that is successful, which I hope it will be, it would leave nothing for the 5th Circuit to rule on because the order to enforce would be moot. (You can hardly order enforcement of a subpoena that effectively doesn’t exist.)

What’s more, if the feds wanted to appeal a decision to quash the subpoena they would have to pursue it in the 1st Circuit (since that’s where the decision was from) - again leaving the 5th Circuit with nothing to do.

The feds will likely argue that the 5th Circuit is the correct venue because that’s where the case arose, but considering that the subpoena is to a hospital in Rhode Island, that is such a tissue-thin argument that I can’t see any self-respecting court - which I gather those of the 1st Circuit are, even if the 5th CCoA isn’t - buying it.

I’m sorry I wasn’t clear before; I was trying to avoid going on too long.

[Update: There was an attempt in Texas to stay the order; the judge and the 5th CCoA both refused. However, in an appropriately-harsh ruling on May 13, Judge Mary McElroy of the District Court for the District of Rhode Island accused the DOJ of having misled both the Texas court and hers as part of an “ideological crusade” against transgender people and then quashed the subpoena on three separate grounds: the underlying legal theory was wrong as a matter of law, it was issued in bad faith, and it violated the right of personal privacy under the 14th Amendment.]

[Update of the Update: The Texas judge said in effect “Screw Rhode Island, send me the stuff.” Because the subpoena had been modified so that the records went to the judge and not the DOI (Department of Injustice) and were now - supposedly - anonymized, the 1st CCoA failed to uphold McElroy’s ruling and the records are being transferred into the questionable hands of the reactionary, anti-LGBTQ+ and even more anti-trans hands of Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas.]

==

2026-05-09
[A video of members of the TN legislature after the redistricting vote prompted the comment “It’s always old white guys.”]

Not all old white guys! As a 77 y.o. white guy, I resent that!

And yes, absolutely, I am being sarcastic. In fact, when I saw the vid, I had the same thought: “A buncha old white guys. Of course.”

==

2026-05-09
[Re the same video.]

Contrary to some thoughts here, the size of their dicks is irrelevant. What matters is the size of their souls, so shriveled, desiccated, and evacuated as to no longer be worthy of the word.

==

2026-05-09
[Some Democrats are finding a way of talking about trans rights: contrasting GOPper focus on it with other issues.]

Kinda like what I suggested for candidates a bit ago: You don’t have to make trans rights the - or even a - centerpiece of your campaign, because it’s not something high on the list of most people’s concerns. But you support it, you acknowledge it, and when challenged on it, you Don’t. Back. Down.

For all of us who are trans folks and trans allies but aren’t public figures, the bottom line remains: Got to somehow keep on keepin’ on, taking strength from whatever we can whenever we can.

==

2026-05-12
[The FCC called for public comment on a proposal to add notification of LGBTQ+ (particularly trans) content in programs to TV warning labels. This was my comment.]

The proposal to add “transgender and gender non-binary” and “gender identity themes” to the list of TVOMB [the TV Oversight Management Board] warning labels is unnecessary, stigmatizing, and driven by animus. It should be withdrawn.

It’s generally agreed - at least to a degree sufficient to impact policy - that exposure to themes such as sex and violence is unhealthy for children too young to put it in context. Recognizing and considering the existence of LGBTQ+, particularly here transgender people, is neither; that is, there is no such general agreement and indeed such exposure is not harmful - but essentially equating it with exposure to sex, violence, unnecessarily coarse language, and so on is in fact harmful to the people whose very existence is being labeled a source of concern.

This proposal neither reflects nor advances the public interest; rather, it reflects and advances the bias of a repressive, fearful fringe to which the FCC and the White House wrongly seem eager to cater.

At a time when restrictions on gender-affirming care are under attacks that increasingly include adults as well as young folks, perhaps the FCC would like to drop the pretense of this being about “protect the children” and go all the way to a TV version of the Hayes Code. The people of this country, even its children, are too grown up for that.

Withdraw this proposal.

So I said... #19 - April 4 to May 1

Here the latest of my more-or-less weekly (in this case more) collection of comments and whatnot I’ve made at various places around the tubes of the Interweb. A reminder that comments and such are always welcome. For the sake of completeness and self-promotion, I’ll also note my other recent posts on Social Security and the recent SCOTUS decision tearing more of the guts from the Voting Rights Act.

Allons-y!

===

2026-04-22
[YouTuber Jesse Dollemore cited polls showing majorities in favor of impeachment/removal of TOO but kept wondering about the undecided.]

To answer Jesse’s question about “Who are these people,” the 8% unsure about impeachment, I’d suggest that some of them are those who might favor impeachment/removal but think success is so unlikely that it’s a waste of energy and political capital to make it a focus.

Consider: There are now 45 Dem Senators plus 2 Independents who caucus with the party, for a total of 47. There are 22 GOPpers up for reelection to the Senate this fall. If the Dems hold every one of their seats and flip fully half of those GOPper seats, that total rises to 58. Even then if in a Senate trial every one of that 58 (including such as John Fetterman) voted to convict, it would still take the votes of 9 GOPers to reach a 2/3 majority.

Not an impossible task but if you don’t find those numbers daunting, you’re not paying attention.

===

2026-04-23
[From Erin in the Morning: The FCC is seeking comment on whether the TV Parental Guidelines rating system needs to be changed to penalize shows for transgender or nonbinary content.]

It’s worth noting that if TV programs should be expected should have some sort of indication that themes relating to gender are involved, then every single program with people, real or animated (and maybe some without), should have such a notice because the failure to include characters who are some flavor of LGBTQ+ is every bit as much a statement of “gender ideology” as is having any who are.

-

2026-04-23
[Comment: The rating system I support: parents review the content and decide if it’s appropriate for their child, no one else’s.]

Just be aware that you will get the response “How can I review a TV show before it’s broadcast? Isn’t that what the ratings system is for? So shouldn’t it be expanded?”

Of course that argument becomes self-defeating because you’d either have to have ratings for every single topic that anyone at all might find offensive or concerning - which is a practical impossibility - or say it’ll be up to the government to decide what topics “need parental review” and which don’t and how many potentially concerned parents/guardians are necessary for the government to provide the government-determined appropriate warning.

In other words, chaos or censorship.

The problem is, most people won’t get past mentally adding “to include MY concerns” to the end of my opening quote.

===

2026-04-23
[Texas Tech bans LGBTQ+ topics, including in theses and dissertations]

As bans are being applied even to graduate level research, does anyone remember when the whole thing was about THE CHILDREN!!! OMG SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!

I seem to remember that....

===

2026-04-26
What we now have in hand [thanks to Chris Geidner] is proof of what we thought and expected (and any among us who didn’t should have): This SCOTUS is making it up as it goes along, inventing and ignoring procedures and legal principles as needed to obtain pre-decided, ideologically desired, results.

Bear in mind that the power - really the only power - of any court is the acceptance of its authority and legitimacy. Even violent enforcement of its rulings requires that acceptance among the enforcers. And the loss of respect and legitimacy of this court has gone so far that I can’t help but both wonder and fear there may soon come a time when people in some position of power start saying “I don’t care what the Supreme Court says, I’m doing it anyway.”

===

2026-04-26
The death penalty is a relic of barbarism that has no place in a society that even claims to be civilized. That it’s being pushed by an administration that prides itself on being “tough” and “manly” and “lethal” headed by a man-child so doubtful of his own merit that he has to plaster his name on anything available in the (no doubt vain) hope that he will be remembered by history as someone powerful and worthy of that notice should come as no surprise.

We are a shameful outlier. We are the only UN member state in the Americas to have executed anyone since 2008. We are virtually alone among - I almost used the passé term “our allies” - NATO nations in maintaining this badge of brutality, this symbol of savagery, which despite the lack of any evidence that it reduces the murder rate, despite the demonstrated racist bias in its imposition, despite the execution of innocent people, despite the murder rate continuing to gradually decline, despite dropping support, it itself refuses to die.

Twenty-three US states, Washington, DC, and four US territories have banned capital punishment. Of the 27 states and one territory that allow it, seven have a moratorium on it and five more have had no executions for over 10 years, leaving 16 states and the feds with active death penalties.

That’s 16 too many.

===

2026-04-28
[The DOI - Department of Injustice - filed a motion to lift the injunction blocking The Orange Overlord’s ballroom; the motion “more closely resembled a Truth social post than a legal filing.” One comment defended the filing, saying “It reads like advocacy. So what? Where is the sanctionable conduct?”]

The “what” is that while it can be generously described as advocacy, it is advocacy not addressed to the court but to The Orange Overlord in an on-going effort to maintain favor in his sight by stringing together a list of his fantasies punctuated with effusive praise of his “ability, foresight, [and] talent” - even as the facts related to the ballroom have not shifted and “public safety” is “central” only as a means to advance a selfish ego-driven project undertaken without lawful authority.

So the sanctionable conduct is in filing such a patently frivolous motion.

===

2026-04-30
[An image showed ‘70s homophobia and ‘20s transphobia using the same language.]

Exactly. Not just the same clams, the same damn words.

Oh, but you missed one, the perpetual “THE CHILDREN! OMG SAVE THE CHILDREN!”

-

2026-04-30
[I do fight to protect our trans kids.]

Okay…. but that reads like you think I was disagreeing with you somehow. I wasn’t. I’ve been struck before how it’s not only the same claims being made in each case, it is frequently in the exact same words. (Although for me, the “then” case stretches back to the ‘50s, when again, it was the same claims in the same words.

Which was why my last remark, more a case of bitter humor than actually suggesting it be included (it really is too long) because “save the children” always seems to be at the heart of this sort of fear-driven social panic - especially this one, which unlike most social panics did not arise organically but was deliberately designed and created (and is being maintained) for selfish ideological reasons of social and political dominance.

===

2026-04-30
[Idaho passed an extreme bathroom ban, covering all public facilities, government and private, including single-stall ones. One trans person spoke about the difficulties that presented.]

“do I avoid going out altogether?”

Yes. That is exactly the point, to make trans folks disappear from society.

===

2026-05-01
[On April 9, responding to a post about a methodologically-flawed study saying puberty blockers are dangerous, someone asked what kind of review the study received. I answered by describing the general impression of the publication’s standards. On May 1, a reply to that said they think the publication has an anti-trans bias based on earlier having published an equally-flawed survey of related studies. Got all that? Okay.]

Thank you for this. I hadn’t known about the Baxendale study you examined, but I did note that it pursued the same logic that anti-trans studies of the literature often do: Studies producing what I’ll call pro-trans results (defined as “not producing results useful to anti-trans ideologues”) are dismissed for not having RCTs and/or for having a small sample while neither of those standards are required for those that produce anti-trans results.

I hope it was clear that in my original comment I wasn’t defending the study in question; someone asked about what standards for publication the study had met, so I described the publication.

Without being more familiar with the journal, I don’t know if Acta Paediatrica has a bias on the topic but if it has a bias, I rather suspect it lies in the “moderately picky about what it accepts” and “cited relatively rarely” parts. “Sure, we’ll take it. Got pages to fill.”

===

2026-05-01
[Pete “Manly Man” Hegseth claimed that the first message from the pilot downed in Iran was “Good is good.” A TikTok video said that was a a lie because the transponder couldn’t send custom messages.]

Recalling first that a lie can be reasonably defined as “a statement intended to deceive” and second the saying that “a lie is most effective when wrapped around a kernel of truth,” I can but wonder if the lie here is not one of falsification but of misleading.

That is, yes, that was the message - and it was a pre-programmed one as code for, I dunno, something like “I’m alive and capable of getting into a helicopter without assistance.”