Gender and Sex

Ethics Quiz: The Fit Exhibitionist Disney World Guests

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

In June 2025, TikTok fitness influencer [Full disclosure: I’m biased already] Nicole Arena attacked Walt Disney World after the theme park’s staff told her that she was not dressed appropriately for the family-friendly venue. She had to buy a cover-up T-shirt before they would allow her to get on a ride.

For some reason the controversy has surfaced again, which is good, because I love dress code ethics controversies. Most of my posts on the topic are here.

That’s a photo of the two at the park above, with Nicole’s full outfit in the inset. Apparently Disney’s employees didn’t raise any objections to her husband John Whitespot’s (!) outfit, which seems clearly discriminatory. He’s also a “fitness influencer”(see bias note above: Ditto, plus any full-grown man who wears his cap backwards is an idiot… ) and an inarticulate musclehead as well. “I couldn’t care less if someone thinks your outfit was inappropriate because we both know that neither one of us would feel comfortable or ok with anything that would expose you in any way,” John wrote, defending his wife.

Oh. What?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Was it fair for Disney to force Nicole to “cover up”?

The most on-point of my past dress code posts is probably this one, about the fitness model who was denied boarding on an American Airlines flight because she was dressed like this:

That’s a bit more extreme than Nicole’s garb, but the dress code issue is always about slippery slopes. In that post I summed up the problem this way:

Ah, dress codes! They are conduct rules put in place by businesses and institutions because some people have no manners, sense of place, consideration for others or respect, and these codes never, ever, work in the long run, because some people have no manners, sense of place, consideration for others or respect. Once upon a time, children, adults going out into public dressed with taste and modesty as an expression of respect to others, including strangers, that they might meet. The Sixties destroyed this cultural consensus by questioning manners, decorum, conformity, dignity, and respect for others, especially anybody over thirty. Do your own thing! Let it all hang out! Today, a half century later,  people nonchalantly wear flip-flops to the opera and church, while the obese passenger sitting next to you on an airplane may be wearing a tank-top, and hasn’t  bathed in a week.

I think changing cultural norms may take the issue out of the realm of ethics into the generation gap quagmire, but I’m not certain, hence the quiz. The Disney episode also reminded me of this recent post.

Another Glamorous Conservative Woman Who Never Should Have Been Appointed Embarrasses Herself and the Trump Administration and Gets Sacked

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Wait, isn’t that Kristi Noem? No, too young; it has to be Pam Bondi, right? No? It can’t be Kimberly Guilfoyle, she’s a brunette. I’ve got it: that’s Katie Zacharia! No?

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sick of this pattern. The Biden administration may have put a lot of incompetent, unqualified women in various positions based on DEI bias, but hiring women because somebody thinks they are hot and have sexy hair is just as unethical, and arguably even worse.

“MAGA Barbie” is a derisive moniker these days used to describe Indiana Fever WNBA guard Sophie Cunningham, but she’s actually very good at her job (playing women’s pro basketball) as well as her avocation (calling out the racist, anti-white lesbian thugs in her league and reminding the public that biological males have no right to play women’s sports). I think it would be wise to apply expand the employment of the term to professional bimbos like former ESPN reporter and Fox News personality Britt McHenry, who was just fired as a US State Department press adviser.

How hard is it to behave in a dignified, professional fashion when you know you represent the United States and also know that everyone has a camera at the ready to record your behavior in public? Too hard, I guess, for people like McHenry—you know, morons.

McHenry, 40, was hired as the Trump State Department press adviser covering Europe and Africa. Despite the fact that she also was responsible for handling press for Kimberly Guilfoyle’s text message scandal (Heluva job, there, Britt!), she was promoted three days ago to a new job managing External Affairs & Press for Under Secretary Jacob Helberg’s team. Then she did this, according to the New York Post:

Pages: 1 2

Stop Making Me Defend Sydney Sweeney!

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments
Thank heaven for little girls...

The degree to which progressive and Democrat hysterics have decided that Hollywood sex symbol Sydney Sweeney is evil.,.EVIL! has truly exposed the festering insanity of the Left. Now the comely and curvy actress, who has nothing to fear at this stage of her career, can happily troll these fools while making the whole liberal end of the ideological spectrum reveal how completely its occupants will reverse its stereotypical endorsement of all things sexual if it can be weaponized against the Right.

Sweeney’s unforgivable crime is that she is suspected of being conservative, or something, as a result of her cheeky “good jeans/genes” ad. You know, white supremacy. Only a black bombshell is allowed to make such a commercial or play on words. Sydney refused to apologize, then had the audacity to make a sexually provocative sports commercial that was no more offensive that the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues have been since the Sixties.

Now the Political Correctness Furies have descended on Sydney with their talons out again. What did she do this time? In the latest video for her SYRN lingerie line, she was costumed as a character from “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” (above).

Quick, now: who is that supposed to be?

Social media condemned the portrayal as“disgusting” because the actress was allegedly sexualizing a “beloved child character.” “Is she actually turning Cindy Lou, the [purest] sweetest child into a sex symbol!?!? Fire that creative director and get a brain Sydney Sweeney,” one person wrote. Another asked, “Why is she posing as child characters in a lingerie ad?”

Let me clarify some things that reveal how strained this outrage is…

Pages: 1 2

From The “Unethical Ideological Capture” Files: Google’s Bot Explains Why AI Can’t Be Trusted

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Conservative commentator Chris Queen decided to test Google’s AI agent Gemini with a series of questions regarding choosing a personal physician based on racial or ethnic concordance with the potential patient.

Asked “Is it okay to prefer a black doctor?” It replied, “Preferring a black doctor is a choice rooted in communication, cultural alignment, and patient trust.” When the question was changed to ask if choosing a doctor because he or she is Hispanic, the answer came back, “Selecting a doctor who shares your background or speaks your language is a personal choice that many patients make for comfort and communication.”

But when Queen asked about whether choosing a white doctor was okay, Gemini said,

“Selecting a doctor based on race involves distinct ethical considerations depending on the context. While patients generally choose providers for comfort and communication, requests for a provider based strictly on racial preference face complex scrutiny in medical ethics regarding bias versus personal trust.”

Brief tangent: This brought back bad memories for me. Back before the DC Bar fired me this year after 30 years for daring to suggest that it need to be proactive in cleaning up an ethics mess that it had a major role in creating (and from which many of its most powerful members are profiting), I was threatened with dismissal if I didn’t stop pointing out that a law firm was not engaging in unethical and illegal discrimination by acceding to an elderly white law firm client’s request for a lawyer “he could relate to,” someone “more like him.”

I had stated in the orientation seminar for new D.C. lawyers that doing so was not improper “discrimination” under D.C. ‘s legal ethics rule 9.1 “Nondiscrimination” because a lawyer’s and a law firm’s duty is to the client, not to make it more difficult for the client to work with his lawyer in service of social justice agendas. The client had the right to discriminate to maximize his “comfort and communication” in pursuing his legal interests, and by accommodating the client’s needs, a law firm is not discriminating on the basis race.

A middle-aged woke white female lawyer had a meltdown in one of those classes, and I then had multiple complaints registered against me with the D.C. Bar brass. I was and am right. She, the complainers, and the Bar management were wrong but never mind, I got the edict to be woke or go broke anyway. Rather than teach what is unethical and progressive BS in an ethics class, I just eliminated that section. (I should have resigned, perhaps, but the Bar was my most lucrative and prestigious client and there are were more than enough other important issues to cover in the class.)

Back to Queen: after the seemingly conflicting answers he got from Gemini, he had the wit to ask the AI agent “what’s going on here?” Gemini responded candidly:

Pages: 1 2

The One Good Thing About The Cornell Rape Ethics Train Wreck…

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

…it is proving just how corrupt, dangerous, unethical and hypocritical 21st Century progressives and their captured institutions are. Only to anyone paying attention, however. Whose brain hasn’t been liquefied like the American prisoners of war in “The Manchurian Candidate.

Columbia University had planned an event called“Who Gets to Tell the Story? Press Freedom & the Public Square,” to explore the challenges to Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech. TheColumbia Spectator tells the story that the event was canceled because two student journalists tried to offer perspective on the the Cornell rape case that wasn’t consistent with current Leftist and feminist cant.

You can’t make this stuff up.

The Columbia Open Discourse Alliance, supposedly a student “free speech and open dialogue” group, canceled the event at the last minute, explaining that they “felt that we couldn’t host a conversation about who gets to tell a story at this sort of a moment when so many survivors felt that their stories were under attack or weren’t being believed.”

In a rational world, with responsible educators, such a ludicrous statement would sound alarms for the school and institutions involved: What are we teaching? Why are our students so devoid of critical thinking skills? How do we fix this? Nah. The ideological capture of our major educational institutions is so complete that the reaction at Columbia probably was, “What good little Democrats we’ve raised!”

Pages: 1 2

Unethical New York Times Op-Ed of the Week: “I Have Never Seen the Online Right So Happy”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Ann Althouse for some mysterious and perhaps disturbing reason felt the extreme screed by some guy who “writes about influence and the new right” deserved attention. It’s worth reading, I guess, if you still need to be convinced that the New York Times has become little more than propaganda arm of the increasingly bonkers Left and is really working hard to get the vote out for Democrats. Let’s get the feminist base of the Democratic Party—you know, the pro-abortion, pro-child strangling, and now revived “believe all women” fanatics!—energized by advancing the absurd narrative that Lucy Craig is a misunderstood victim of a gang rape that she helped organize, got completely smashed to prepare for, and later airily excused of any claims of illegality with the old abortion trope, “our bodies our choice“!

This jerk earned a platform in the Times by writing in part,

The accusations brought by Jane Doe against seven men at Cornell have given the online right what it’s been missing most: a woman to hate on…Unable to dispute the basic narrative of the assault, including a lurid fraternity group chat, they’ve elected to argue that Doe is the actual aggressor, a once-willing participant in sexual debauchery now seeking vengeance against her hapless partners…

Gee, I wonder why they would think that—after the woman signed a police report indicating there was no rape, waited 20 days to file a complaint, and sued Cornell and the seven Cornell students after her own statements and conduct made a criminal conviction of any of them well nigh impossible? Boy, those conservative conspiracy theorists.. Sorry for interrupting. Back to the op-ed:

“…The message embedded in the right’s freakout is that feminism’s moral permissiveness is corrupting women, our institutions, traditional values and even the left as a whole. The conservative influencer Michael Knowles suggested that [Lucy] is not a victim of violent masculinity, but rather of “hookup culture” run amok. Another conservative, Matt Walsh, declared that “feminists fundamentally reject the idea that women can ever be truly responsible for any wrongdoing of any kind.”

I think they suggest that because it’s true. And the right’s “freakout”? Are these conservatives screaming?

Back to this gaslighting exercise:

Pages: 1 2

What’s The Matter With Washington State School Officials And How Did They Get This Way?

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

In Washington, the ultimate reductio-ad-absurdum scenario occurred in the ongoing woke insanity of allowing male athletes to compete against females once they “identify” as female. At Camus High, boy’s cross-country team member Logan Mihailoff, a junior, finished 76th in a boys’ JV cross-country race on September 15th. So on September 29th the same kid, with no changes in his anatomy or physiology, joined the varsity girls’ team. He had “identified” as female, see. And miracles of miracles, he went from 76th to first in a track meet against Union High!

The school later took legal action against a father who held up a protest sign against this obvious cheat that was enabled by the woke lunatics in charge of overseeing athletics at the school, and they took legal action against him. He chanted, “Keep boys out of girls’ sports,” and now is banned from campus for a year. OutKick reporter Matt Calkins interviewed parents at Camas High and tried to interview an assistant cross-country coach. “Nobody wants to talk to you,” the coach said. “I’m trying to be nice.” The logical and ethical contrast between the parents trying to protest their daughters’ rights to compete in a fair contest and the woke defenders of an indefensible policy was striking.

“We’re about as liberal as it gets,”said parent Kent Lake. “I just don’t agree with that [boys competing against girls]. I mean, if they find your body in 300 years, what are they going to say you were? Look, you can live any way you want. You got my blessing. But I mean come on, in competitions? It’s like stock car racing. It’s gotta be even, and it’s gotta be fair.”

Not especially articulate, but still clear enough. “When I first heard about this story, I was like, ‘Is this real? That can’t be real’,” said a mother of a cross country runner, who requested anonymity because she was probably was afraid that the woke mob would storm her house with torches and pitchforks. “We have daughters, and it’s robbing them of an opportunity to compete.”

Follow-up question, ma’am? Why do you live in this crazy state?

On the pro-letting boys magically turn themselves into girls so they can win races, games and scholarships side—you know, morons—Outkick got responses like “There are more important things in sports than that” from one experienced progressive rationalizer. (I have heard and read that dodge regarding everything from open borders to DEI discrimination.) There is, in fact, no good defense of what the blurry kid above did. Can you guess which one is the boy?

After the September 29th travesty, a dozen female cross-country runners on the Camas High School team refused to compete against the cheat on October 13. About half of the girls competing in last week’s race walked off the field in protest while the newly minted “Miss” Mihailoff took of with the remaining of female runners. (And what brainwashed woke weenies those girls are on the way to becoming!) The 11 protesting female students slowly walked past the starting line with their arms linked and left the field.

There is hope.

Listen to this babbling idiot, the head of the state’s school system, try to defend the school policy:

Yikes. He also is employing the apparent desperation fall-back position of the pro-trans cheating cabal as Initiative 638 comes up for a vote on November 3. It would keep cheating males like Logan Mihailoff out of the women’s competitions in K-12 sports, so opponents say it will require “invasive” checks. No, it wouldn’t. If the dude didn’t decide he was a she until after puberty, then he’s out. Too bad abut that “inclusivity” thingy, but there’s always the chess team. Also being a member of the boys team two weeks earlier is also a big clue. No ‘nads checks required.

How can Americans vote for these people? I don’t get it.

“No Kings” Is Moronic, But I Might Be On Board With “No 13-Year-Olds”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Ugh.

President Trump posted an AI-generated video last week that showed him chasing, tackling and befriending a Siberian tiger, obviously inspired by the horrible incident at the Yorkshire Wildlife Park in Doncaster, England where a mentally disturbed young man, William Chapman, entered a tiger enclosure and was mauled to death. Trump posted the fake video, which was accompanied by The Tokens classic, “The Lion Sleeps Tonight.”

That might be excusable for a junior high school student today, but since a man died in the tragedy it should be obvious to anyone at least as mature as Ralph Malph that the video is in terrible taste, and would be even for a sanitation worker. This is the President of the United States posting such junk, however. I don’t care if it’s “trolling,” or if it’s ‘just a joke,” no American can feel secure and confident about the leader of their nation when he acts like that.

What’s wrong with him? Whatever it is, it’s been wrong with him for a long time, and he’s clearly not going to get over it. The same instinct that served Trump well when he did his McDonald’s bit during the campaign undermines his authority, trust and support when he slips down several notches to this, having fun with a the death of a troubled man. I’ve been trying to imagine any previous POTUS who, given the technology, would behave similarly in his most rash and irresponsible moments. There isn’t one. Reagan, Lyndon Johnson and even Calvin Coolidge were known to play practical jokes on friends and staffers. Silent Cal was fond of pressing his desk buzzer to summon Secret Service agents and then hiding under his desk. But none of them would think posting the tiger video was wise, or anything but harmful to both the office and Trump’s policy agenda.

I’ll take this opportunity to comment on the “No Kings” protests yesterday. Several friends posted photos of themselves, family members and others embarrassing themselves, apparently unaware that anyone, like me for example, would conclude that their participating in this foolishness reflects terribly on them all. It does seem that the majority of these protesters are seniors, and I suspect that many of the geezers participate out of boredom. They meet other wokified, Trump Deranged Democrats, and maybe hook up for a canasta date or an early dinner at Ruby Tuesday’s.

I sure hope that’s the reason, because I care about some of the people participating in these rallies, and I have to fight myself tooth and nail to avoid losing respect for them completely.

Santa Rosa City (Cal.) Schools: Unethical, Illegal, Unconstitutional, Un-American—Now What?

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

The Cornell Rape Ethics Train Wreck just made a nasty stop.

The captain of the Piner High School football team posted the phrase “Free the Cornell Seven” on Instagram.

So what? That post is entirely, completely, protected free speech, and any semi-informed American dolt over the age of 18 should know it. That message does not involve the school or its students in any way. It is pure opinion.

Never mind. Santa Rosa City Schools officials announced last week that the student had been punished. So far, all we know about the punishment is that the player was barred from attending a team dinner. It doesn’t matter if the punishment was a reprimand in the principal’s office. A school can’t do that.

Not punished, however, were the approximately 200 students—nobody bothered to take names or count them— who walked out of class to protest the fact that their school hadn’t sufficiently punished a fellow student for making a statement of opinion that could not be legally, ethically or constitutionally punished. This is bonkers. The conduct of those students must be punished. Not only that, the teachers and administrators responsible for them not comprehending the essentials of free speech, the First Amendment and the Constitution at such an advanced age should be sacked.

The protesters demanded “accountability” for the football team captain. So did many parents, who complained to the school district that the message “makes light of sexual assault and should not be tolerated.” Not be tolerated? The school’s principal’s answer to the parents should have been,

“Mind your own damn business and get out of my face. You need to go back to high school yourself. You don’t know what you are talking about. First, anyone, including a student here, is free to post any opinion on a controversy in New York on his or her personal social media accounts any time they choose. We have to “tolerate it.” Second, there is no evidence that a sexual assault occurred, despite your fellow travelers on the Left seeking to wreck the lives of young men as a show of solidarity with the worst of American feminists.”

Pages: 1 2

From The Res Ipsa Loquitur Files:

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

By all means, let us, as Barack Obama sagely advises, have more women in leadership positions.

I guess that loony scene doesn’t entirely speak for itself. I have questions.

Can anyone imagine men behaving like this? Can anyone imagine trustworthy, rational women behaving like this?

What, exactly, are they screaming about?

What good do they think screaming will do?

Who suggested that screaming was the ideal way to support Lucy Craig, aka. “Jane Doe,” who is accusing seven men of sexual assault that took place two years ago after texting one of her alleged assailants that everything was consensual and signing a document that stated that no rape occurred?

After whoever it was suggested this brilliant and articulate protest, what kind of woman would react with, “Perfect! That’s exactly what needs to be done in the interest of justice!”?

Is it possible that the women above think that more viewers will think, “Hey, they make a good point! I’m convinced Lucy was raped!” than will conclude, “Women in this country have completely lost their minds!”?

And again: this is the constituency voters will be siding with when they vote for Democrats next month.

Yikes.