That’s one of Elon Musk’s biological sons (he has a lot of them) above, now a trans-female model—not there’s anything wrong with that— named Vivian Wilson. The Daily Mail has a very tabloid story (as in “Who the hell cares about this stuff?”) telling us that Vivian is featured as a model in the latest Savage x Fenty new Pride-themed collection. Be still, my beating heart!
You can read the story here, if your sock drawer is in order and you have no life, but my concern involves how the link to the story was presented by Citizen Free Press, the conservative news aggregator that took over that market from the Drudge Report when Matt went woke and NeverTrump a decade ago. Here’s how the site described the link:
I expected Vivian to be posed on disemboweled kittens or famine victims with that trigger warning. No, the photos that are supposed to be “disturbing” are shots like the one above. How much of a weenie cum snowflake would someone have to be to find that photo upsetting enough to mandate a trigger warning? It’s a standard issue fashion shot. Is it supposed to disturb us because its a model with a y chromosome? If that’s the point, then I view the warning as legitimizing transphobia. Even trans-themed photographs that cause my ethics alarms to go off—remember this one, of a Disney “fairy godmother”?—
shouldn’t be considered so trauma-producing that people need an advance warning lest they be struck blind or something.
The somewhat less obnoxious explanation for the “warning” is that it’s a clickbait trick by the site; you know, if it requires a warning, everyone will be curious and click on it. Well, that’s dishonest. As an ethicist, I find the gratuitous trigger warning, indeed trigger warnings in general, far more disturbing than a photo of a biological male doing a convincing female model impression. Good for her! Brava!
It is episodes like this that create needless erosion of respect for conservative values and sensibilities.
How far gone does a fanatic have to be to have an event like this and not expect most people to conclude that the organizers are out of their minds? Menstrual equity? Free period underwear?
The event is scheduled for June 17 and supported by Boston Mayor Wu’s “Office of LGBTQ Advancement.” I am solely tempted to do a riff on this, but I’m going to resist. Mayor Wu, who is about as wokey as a human being can get, is really getting away with this somehow. Wow. Talk about pandering to a minority! This may be an all time record.
A veteran EA commenter today who excels in the contrived “gotcha!” accused me of “name-calling” because I consistently describe today’s Democratic Party as aspiring totalitarians, Machiavellian, and cheaters, and say Democrats want to gut the Constitution. It reminded me of the objection in the Continental Congress (as portrayed in “1776”) over Thomas Jefferson’s use of the word “tyrant” to describe England’s King George. Jefferson’s justification of his choice of words: “He is a tyrant.” I bet my critic really be incensed as I write—now—that today’s vote in Congress indicates that the party is also silly, doctrinaire and…wait for it….moronic.
Because it does, and it is.
Democrats, along with a few Republicans who should go the way of Thomas Massey, voted to cancel the Smithsonian’s planned Women’s History Museum because Republicans added language to its astablishment bill defining women in a manner that leaves out Renee Richards, Caitin Jenner, and the fully, ah, “intact” male “transitioners” who have been slaughtering female competitors in amateur swimming, wrestling, volleyball, and track and field. You know, like this person known as “Lia Thomas.”
The measure to establish the museum was defeated 216 to 204. Not a single Democrat voted for it, so chained is the party to radical LGBTQ propaganda.
Amazing. Amazing. The fact that most women still support a party that is so hypocritical regarding women’s welfare and rights—this is the party, remember, who made serial sexual predator Bill Clinton the keynote speaker at its national convention proclaiming the “Year of the Woman”!— is as incomprehensible as the fact that so many American Jews still vote for the party that increasing supports Hamas.
In fact, irony and hypocrisy are everywhere in this vote. The Axis of Unethical Conduct (“the resistance,” Democrats and the news media) like to say that Congressional Republicans refuse to swerve from the MAGA script, but the GOP virtually never gets 100% agreement. Every House Democrat, however, wants to see a Women’s History Museum that has a special exhibit honoring this recent Democratic administration official:
How “inclusive.”
Because the proposed museum wouldn’t be pandering to anomalies like Admiral Rachel Levine and the former cute-as-a-bunny actress playing Achilles in the new Odyssey film…
…Democrats decided en masse that American women who were crucial to the founding and development of this nation despite being marginalized, abused and discriminated against shouldn’t have their fascinating and inspiring stories told at all. Their museum wouldn’t sufficiently validate the social pathogen causing parents to allow their children to be mutilated and sports to undermine the cause of female athletes after they fought so hard to compete, you see.
An earlier version of the bill was co-sponsored by 127 Democrats. Republicans on the House Administration Committee added new language to the bill last month to dedicate the museum to “preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements, and lived experiences of biological women.”
As opposed to, you know, men who decided they were women, wanted to be regarded as women, or pretended to be women.
Republican New York Rep. Nicole Malliotakis resigned as vice chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus today in response to the Democrats’ ridiculous tantrum, being appropriately disgusted by the vote even though 20 Democrats on the caucus co-sponsored the bill. In a letter to the committee’s co-chairs, Malliotakis pointed to Democrats on the committee refusing to cross party lines on pieces of legislation.
“If not one Problem Solvers Democrat would vote for a straightforward measure to transfer federal land for a women’s history museum simply because it was amended through regular order, during the committee process, to ensure that only biological women are exhibited, then what can we actually rely on the Caucus’ Democrats to join us on? I therefore submit my resignation as vice chair and member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, effective immediately,” Malliotakis wrote.
Good for her.
[Incidentally, I am not unalterably opposed to a National LGBTQ Museum that includesaccomplished and significant trans individuals, if they ever stop killing people…]
I wonder if I should bother highlighting the really foolish things actors and celebrities say when they start talking about social issues and politics. Is it the Julie Principle? “Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, actors think they have valuable things to say about stuff they know little about and are no more qualified to opine on than your average sanitation worker…” Stories like this one make me ponder.
Ted Levine’s most famous role in a successful career as a character actor came early when he played the serial killer “Buffalo Bill,” aka. Jaime Gumm, in “The Silence of the Lambs.” The movie was a sensation, winning both Jody Foster and Anthony Hopkins acting Oscars while its director won the Direction Oscar and the film was Best Picture. Still, Levine’s performance as a mincing, gender-confused psycho (who skinned his female victims to make a “girl suit” was as memorable as either of his co-stars.
Now Levine is in a career slump, or something, so today, thirty-five years later, he says that he “regrets” playing Bill. He told the Hollywood Reporter,
“There are certain aspects of the movie that don’t hold up too well.We all know more, and I’m a lot wiser about transgender issues. There are some lines in that script and movie that are unfortunate… [It’s] just over time and having gotten aware and worked with trans folks, and understanding a bit more about the culture and the reality of the meaning of genderIt’s unfortunate that the film vilified that, and it’s fucking wrong. And you can quote me on that.”
Feel better now, Ted? Were Hollywood Wokies being mean to you because you accepted a plum part as a struggling actor and didn’t anticipate the Transsexual Fever to come in 2026? Will you be acceptable now, after pandering to LGPTQ+ fanatics and activists?
Ugh. I won’t call it an ethics train wreck, because this is really another subset of the nation’s victim-mongering/tribal/white male vilification problem as well as the already running “DEI Ethics Train Wreck” and the “Trans Activism Ethics Train Wreck.”
Of course we have to have a Women’s History Museum. There are four historically “marginalized” groups, and women are the largest and longest suffering of them all. D.C. already has huge museum dedicated to African Americans, and there is a Smithsonian museum called the National Museum of the American Indian. Women have every right to feel snubbed in the current obsession with group identification. You know an LGBTQ+ museum on the Mall will be next: how could it not be?
Conservatives who argue, as one did in the comments to a recent online item about the museum, “[The museum] continues to foment the balkanization of America. The accomplishments of women are just that: accomplishments. Their fruits are enjoyed by all, not just by those of the gender/race/religion, etc of the person who made the accomplishment” are trying to lock the barn door after the horse has escaped and won the Kentucky Derby. This is “National Women’s Month.” The Democrats had a national convention celebrating “The Year of the Woman” (with Bill Clinton as a keynote speaker, but never mind…). Half of the arguments for voting for Hillary and Kamala was their lady-parts. We’re stuck with U.S. women seeing themselves as a special, separate, aggrieved and superior group for the foreseeable future, probably forever.
But there is a problem: the party that at least pretends to be the “party of women” can’t figure out what a woman is. This week House Democrats blocked legislation to establish the “Women’s History Museum” because of an amendment attached by Republicans stating, “The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements, and lived experiences of biological women in the United States.”
“Far from being isolated incidents, the two attacks are just the latest mass shootings involving trans-identified perpetrators in recent years. And they will doubtless reignite speculation among Republican figures in the US that transgender treatment is making people more likely to carry out such attacks.”
I love this quote! It’s a “bias makes you stupid” all-time classic. It’s a self-awareness void all-time classic! It’s a “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts” all-time classic! It’s a “Yoo’s Rationalization,” or “It isn’t what it is” all-time classic!
What a perfect example of the Left’s woke delusions and amazing ability to see only what it wants to see. I want to frame that quote. I want to put it on T-shirts and coffee mugs.
Never mind pondering whether trans individuals are mentally ill: what does it say about progressives who can read that statement and react by shaking their heads, tut-tutting, and thinking, “How true, how true. Those hateful Republicans, and conservatives of course, will definitely speculate that because a tiny sliver of the population has been disproportionately engaging in mass murder, there might be a reason related to the radical treatment we good and rational people call “gender affirming care. What’s the matter with those bigots?”
Funny, I have been wondering, since so many individuals of dubious gender identity have been killing people lately while the news media, in its coverage that emphasizes the only their favorite anti-gun angle, never mentions the possibility that there may be a link between trans murderers snapping and their…what can I call it? Malady? No, that’s pejorative. Condition? Confusion? Delusion? Medical abuse?…if I’m the only one whose Holmesian instincts detect a possible cause and effect.
Now, thanks to Jill’s incisive reportage, I realize that my politically incorrect thoughts are simply attributable to the fact that I would rather have an orangutan rip my face off and eat it than vote for a Democrat in November.
I’m gradually viewing Jill’s matter of fact statement that only U.S. Republicans are capable of processing reality as excellent reporting. Far from being the unethical, biased, incredibly stupid assertion it appeared to be at first reading, I realize this is a factual assertion. Democrats will deny even an unavoidable conclusion if it in any way undermines their favored world view. If it is an inconvenient fact, they will made sure their captive propagandists in the media bury it or deny it, or better still, demonize those who dare to utter such Wrongthink out loud.
Thanks, Jill! You’ve given us a lot not to think about.
There are a lot of unlikely names among the Ethics Heroes, and Emmanuel, the Clinton enforcer and Chicago machine pol is a surprising as any of them. But he alone among current Democratic 2028 Presidential aspirants had the guts and integrity to answer directly an Axios survey on controversial trans issues sent to these hacks, liars, rogues, and phonies. It asked,
“Should transgender girls be able to participate in girls’ sports? Do you believe transgender youths under age 18 should be able to be placed on puberty blockers and hormones? Can a man become a woman?”
Emmanuel answered no to the first and last questions, and defaulted to “parents, not legislatures, should decide” regarding the middle one. True, Rahm has about as much chance of winning the White House as a Democrat in 2028 as I do, but still: he not only gave an answer, he gave one that his party’s wacko base will hate. I’m not concerned about whether I personally agree with Emmanuel. He is ethical because he was willing to answer the questions.
Why this has morphed into “Dubious University Firings Friday” I don’t know, but here goes…
The University of Arkansas rescinded its appointment of Emily Suski (above), a professor of law and Associate Dean for Strategic Institutional Priorities (whatever that’s supposed to mean) at the the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law, as its new University of Arkansas Law School dean. It had previously announced on January 9 that Suski would become dean on July 1, beginning a five-year contract with a $350,000 annual salary, according to The New York Times. At the time, University of Arkansas provost Indrajeet Chaubey praised Suski’s “extensive experience in leadership roles in legal education and practice” and said she “is an accomplished scholar” who “has also been very successful in establishing medical-legal partnerships in South Carolina to support children’s health and overall well-being.”
Sounds great! Then an Arkansas state senator and others registered their objections to Suski based on her stated support for trans female athletes competing against biological women in women’s sports, and the fact that she was among 850 law professors who signed a letter urging the US Senate to confirm the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.
In response, university officials announced that they had rescinded Suski’s offer because of “feedback from key external stakeholders.” It appears that the school acted because of veiled threats from Republican state legislators that having such a progressive law dean would endanger the University’s funding from the state. (“Nice little law school you have here…be a shame if anything were to happen to it…”) After all, Arkansas law was the first state in the US to ban “gender-affirming care”—gag!— for minors.
I’m about 85% certain what the right answer to this one is, but out of respect for that 15% of doubt,
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Was it fair and responsible to dump the new dean because of two public positions on controversial legal topics?
In an ethics seminar I recently described how conduct could be legal but unethical (example: lying) and ethical but illegal (civil disobedience). Singer Trish Hyman decided that a little disturbance of the peace in a Gold’s Gym’s cafe area was the best way to draw attention to the gym’s unethical (and stupid….but woke, so it’s okay) practices regarding dangling penises in women’s changing rooms, so she shouted out her complaint raucously and made sure it was recorded.
The Beverly Center Gold’s Gym revoked the singer’s membership after she complained that a transgender wannabe woman (“with a big dick”) being in the women’s dressing room. “Today I was naked in the locker room. I turned around, and there was a man there. Boy clothes, lip gloss, standing there looking at me, and I’m butt naked,” Hyman said in a video posted on TikTok.
A brief introduction: Last night I attended a lavish Georgetown Law Center reunion gala. I boycotted the previous reunion of my class and would have boycotted this one, but two classmates I hadn’t seen in decades persuaded me to attend. Georgetown being a sort-of Catholic institution there was prayer before the meal, but the cleric involved felt it necessary to lead into the blessing with a long string of dog-whistles to angry progressives, “the resistance,” Democrats and the Trump-Deranged, droning on about “troubled times” and “losing hope” and the need to “navigate the waters of societal division” with kindness, mercy and respect for humanity. I started eating long before she got to amen: another ad for illegal immigration was a good bet to spoil my appetite. Later on, one of my left-wing classmates volunteered the opinion that she was glad that Harvard had stood up to the Evil One. I began listing all of the reasons I have my diploma to that school turned to the wall, and, of course, she was aware of none of them. Why? You know the reason: she only reads and watches the Axis news media, which carefully gives minimum attention to incidents that tend to discredit fellow propagandists and indoctrinaters of the Left…like Harvard. I stumbled across a useful new website last week that highlights embarrassing news and developments regarding Old Ivy, but lost the link. I searched for it using every possible search term, and couldn’t locate it on Google.
Gee, I wonder why…
Sorry for the digression. Back to the topic at hand: here are two bits of damning Harvard news:
Ethics Alarms 