Just wait until they start menstruating all over the church floor. Then the no underwear rule will magically disappear.

Uh, wah wah wah? That's all I'm hearing. Poor strain on the poor prosecutors, clearly they're the victims here! Not the actual victims! Next time people, when someone commits a crime against you, think of the poor prosecutors and don't be so selfish with your shattered life and grieving process.

What are you complaining about? Most rape victims never burden your precious system in the first place. They take the burden and the pain themselves, for no pay or reward.

Do you understand what it's like to be raped? The only obligation a victim has is to healing themselves. Even in ideal circumstances it can be traumatizing, let alone when one is homeless. For some victims it has truly ruined their lives. And as a D.A. you should know that juries are very unlikely to convict when the…

Why, exactly, does it have to be a contest between which is worse? So letting rapists walk free is worse, so that makes it automatically OK to lock up victims who have difficulty with the process? That kind of over-simplification of these types of issues always bothers me. That's not how we have to deal with these…

You're so lazy you still have your Christmas name!

I want to mock these people but I can't because I am a big fan of subscription boxes and that's almost the same thing—getting surprised by stuff I could easily buy but find much more interesting when someone else sends it to me.

See, no, basil. What you're missing is that Piers claimed to have read the book. Mock wrote a piece in Essence Magazine critiquing what Marie Claire did, AND (this is pivotal) she addressed it in the book which Piers has claimed to have read. He called it an inspiring and amazing book—yet he keeps harping on something…

We do not have to apologise to our oppressors for being angry, and allyship and oppression are not mutually exclusive (despite what Piers seems to think). We are not attacking them, Janet Mock was not attacking Piers Morgan.

She did NOT. Her editor changed her wording without her permission. She made that clear repeatedly. She was USED.

A few things: first "transgendered" is not generally accepted to be an ok term. Trans, transgender, trans woman, trans man seem to be the most acceptable. Transgendered turns it into a verb, and that's not appropriate.

I've always admired the PATIENCE and restraint you use in your essays. They're appropriately a little fiery, but you're so good at breaking shit down politely that it makes trans issues incredibly accessible to well-meaning people I know who don't Get It. I love linking your work to others, and they enjoy learning…

Mock could have taken it as a moment to be an ambassador for trans people and used the show as a platform to teach Morgan and his viewers.

Exactly this. I can 100% believe that he was not trying to offend when he initially said "born a boy." What I can't wrap my head around is that when she said it was offensive he decided to argue her to the ground about whether it was or not instead of learning something new.

I've never understood how privileged people (white men seem particularly prone to this) can't accept that THEY DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHAT'S OFFENSIVE TO THE OFFENDED PARTY!! Just because you didn't mean to be offensive doesn't mean you weren't offensive.

Example for his daughter?

Yet here you are, commenting on an article about Jwoww.

Well, why did you comment?

I mean, how is there even a statute of limitations on child sexual abuse? All the love to these brave ladies coming forward. I'm glad the abuser is getting caught and so hope it will bring some peace to her victims.

I like how this DA thinks. Even if he/she turns out to be wrong about the SOL on the older victim (I would be shocked if the younger victim isn't within the statute), an aggressive stance on child sexual abuse is the right thing.