bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 12/07/2026I hadn't realized that the "don't know" number was that huge. That really shows just how decimated the knee-jerk support of israel has become, wow. 010
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 09/07/2026I am being completely sincere when I say that this type of voting guide should be called "Least Bad Option." I live in a Republican area and I rely on my community to tell me who's a christofascist and who's merely bad. That conveys the info in a way nobody can musconstrue. 020
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 07/07/2026I only learned a couple weeks ago that apparently people approached him a couple years back to run for the state legislature and he said no, and I was like ohhhhhhhhhhh 010
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 06/07/2026When that account first wrongly quote-tweeted geidner, I happened to see it early and commented on it. They blocked me lol, but I think they forgot to hide my reply because I was still getting likes and replies. I've found those people just know the headline but are open to hearing reasonable takes 020
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 06/07/2026I guess it's my turn to go "huh?" Because I was talking about how best to talk to people who are hurt and scared. And I read your message as saying that that approach will result in unreasonable people calling me names. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean? 120
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 06/07/2026I think it'd be a little weird to volunteer to be A Law Explainer to strangers and not look for people who want to understand the law in good faith, because why would you bother if you think no one is gonna listen? 110
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 06/07/2026I mean, no one is forcing me to post on the internet, and I assume the same is true for you? If you don't want to wade through the bullshit to have some good conversations, you don't have to. 110
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026also, I care about this discourse because we deserve to know the exact way we're getting fucked over, and misunderstandings help no one. If, at the end of the day, you're still like, nah fuck these guys, I am the last person who's gonna talk you out of that. 000
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/20263 - why didn't the girl's lawyers argue against the "biological sex" definition of Title IX? It's a strategy. When you know you're gonna lose, you might want to drop an argument so you don't get a bad ruling on the books. Of course, the conservatives decided that question anyways. 000
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026Jackson did that here, and it's really unusual. Interesting also, that neither Sotomayor nor Kagan signed on to her opinion doing so. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026again, you're supposed to exercise restraint when an argument isn't in front of you, though it's less of a sin in a dissent when you're not actually creating binding law. But the conservatives do this all the time, using concurring and dissenting opinions as a soap box to promote extreme ideas. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/20262.5 - I do think it's interesting that Jackson half-broke this rule herself, when she wrote her solo dissent. Sotomayor just wrote that footnote and moved on, but Jackson wrote a whole dissent about why the "biological sex" argument is wrong. That's considered bad form - 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026It's important to note that this *didn't work* here. The 3 liberals said, "we're just assuming 'sex' here means 'biological sex' because of the lawyers' concessions," but the 6 conservatives broke the rules and decided the question anyways. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026Part of this rule means you decide a case based on the argument the lawyers actually make, not the argument you wish they made. You do this by "assuming for the sake of this case" that X is true, and going from there. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/20262 - what does "following the rules" even mean? The Supreme Court binds itself by a rule that they should make their decisions as narrow as possible, with the logic that doing otherwise results in judges just making up their own laws and imposing them on us. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026Because the law targeted trans kids assigned male at birth and not trans kids assigned female at birth, that still counts as discriminating according to sex at birth. The SCOTUS liberals didn't buy that argument. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/20261 - The 4th circuit still gound that WV violated Title IX tho? The 4th circuit was still bound by the "biological sex" shenanigans, they just said that it counted as "biological sex" discrimination because WV only limited trans girls, not trans boys. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026Both Sotomayor and Jackson explicitly wrote they were not agreeing with that idea, but they said they had to apply it to this case anyways, because that's the rules. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026The point I want to make is very narrow - the girl's lawyers chose at the beginning not to argue with the idea that "sex" in Title IX means "biological sex." In response, the liberals said they couldn't argue with that idea either. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026First off, the nuances of this particular decision are buried under a mountain of legalese and procedure, and legal journalism does a bad job of explaining things. You are not stupid for not immediately grasping all this nonsense, and you are not wrong to approach the legal system with cynicism. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026idk if anyone will ever read this, but a couple of my replies have gotten follow-up questions/comments that got deleted before I could respond (the discourse has gotten heated, I don't blame them), so I thought I'd respond here because I thought they were valid and in good faith. 120
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026This is such a good point, and I think a lot of lawyers are doing a huge disservice when they refuse to acknowledge that choosing to play by the rules has consequences. 010
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026A few times now I've opened my phone to notifications with good-faith questions about the ruling, only to find that the replies have gotten deleted in the meantime, which makes me worry that scared people are catching heat from other users treating this like a stan fight 010
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026Just simply acknowledging that procedural rules can give us shitty outcomes goes such a long way when talking to non-lawyers. This isn't the safety of a civpro classroom, we gotta talk with extreme care if we're appointing ourselves legal communicators 281
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026the time to actually write out, "this is what the better argument looks like and how you should argue it." 11043
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026The girl's lawyers chose to give up on the "biological sex" argument before the case even began, so the liberal judges had their hands tied - you have to rule on the argument people make, not the better arguments you wish they made instead. Sotomayor just said that in a footnote, but Jackson took 11123
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026Oh I absolutely agree, to be very clear. This gets reaaallly into the weeds but basically, the girl's lawyers gave up on the "biological sex" argument before the case even began, and the legal system's shitty rules mean they have to rule on the argument you actually made. 020
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 05/07/2026There were two different arguments in the case, one whether WV violated Title IX (9-0) and one whether it violated the constitution (6-3). Jackson said it absolutely violated the constitution, and she said "Title IX can still protect trans kids, but the lawyers argued it badly." 1130
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 03/07/2026trying to force a "good tsar, bad boyar" narrative when the tsar is flat out saying "it was me, i did this" 0240
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 25/06/2026(sorry for a twitter link) - this was all ppl could talk about for three weeks but racists don't bring it up bc it doesn't fit their narrativex.comMostly WNBA Tweets (@MostlyWNBA) on XThought Steph left her fire in Connecticut! 🥵 https://t.co/meFefzUAAf 000
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 25/06/2026adding to that, the reffing this year has been absolutely egregious. multiple bad calls, against both teams, every game. so there are enough clips to build whatever racist conspiracy theory you want to 130
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 25/06/2026the funny thing is that to me she seems to crash out just as hard when she's playing white women, but these dudes never seem to mention that. the video where she mouthed off to her coach so much the coach benched her was against portland and they're mostly white and european. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 25/06/2026she got murdered by the portland fire, the whitest team in the league lmao 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 25/06/2026The argument about "bigger problems" is especially confusing to me. Different levels of governments do different things, and there's really nothing more important to my city council than ensuring that local buildings are safe for old people. 010
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 25/06/2026I think what's difficult for me to understand is that the UK-ers pushing back on bsky aren't talking about advocating for change and failing - I haven't seen someone be like "tenants in my community tried to get the law changed, [local government body equivalent] said no." 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 25/06/2026I've seen people (reasonably) say that the portable AC units and window adapters are a pain in the ass because different manufacturers don't have interchangeable parts, but then the unreasonable people act like that can't change. That's what regulation is for! Demand more from your government! 010
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 21/06/2026I forget where I heard it, but i really liked the analysis that dems/media preferred to focus on the allegations of being a Russian asset, because that's "recent," but focusing on the cult thing would mean admitting they didn't vet her properly before putting her on committees/TV, respectively 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 20/06/2026np! It's like parenting a toddler, there is no reason grown ass men should need rules this specific pedantic 😭 110
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 20/06/2026Yeah there's a hand signal you can give the ref to report racist shit and they're supposed to stop the match and address it 110
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 20/06/2026No, racist shit is against the rules too. But players started covering their mouths and lying about what they said, so now the rule is when you shit talk you have to keep your mouth uncovered so everyone can read your lips and see for themselves if it's just shit talk or a slur 110
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 12/06/2026dp.electionresults.sos.ca.gov/unprocessed-... Statewide, there are 140k ballots *from before/on election day* that still need to be processed (as in, looked at for the first time.) There's no pattern as to who has outstanding ballots, it's just about who cares enough to devote the resources.dp.electionresults.sos.ca.govCalifornia Primary Election ResultsCalifornia Primary Election Results, June 2, 2026. 000
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 12/06/2026I mean, in 2018 it took so long to count votes that Young Kim actually showed up to freshman orientation in DC. It usually doesn't reach national attention, but it's an absolute shitshow every year. Counties are allowed two whole weeks to count all the ballots without problems in them. 100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 12/05/2026it's not antitech fanfic either, it's always just this throwaway line on the way to her real question. We do a bad job if teaching people the signs of abuse generally, these girls are so unequipped for this 0100
bev @mydudebev.bsky.social · 12/05/2026LISTENNNNNN if you ever go on reddit advice forums there's always a girl in her teens or 20s who is so used to sharing life360 with her parents that she shares it with her boyfriend without a second thought and then he uses it as an abusive control tactic. 1131
![14 The majority reaches this conclusion not by assuming that “sex”
means “biological sex,” or sex identified at birth, in Title IX, the Javits
Amendment, and its accompanying regulations, but by saying that it
does, at least in the sports context. Ante, at 10. There was no reason to
go that far, however, given that B. P. J. loses on her concessions alone.
The majority could, and should, have instead done what the Court did in
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U. S. 644 (2020): “proceed on the assump-
tion” that “ ‘sex’ ” in Title IX “refer[s] only to biological distinctions be-
tween male and female.” Id., at 655.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bkjvhdle26d4rfbiypgvhqgg/bafkreig7nfxprajtxrstrrzsxemmwa4tugltwgh5exfqthr5ps2phrdd3q)
