Hello everyone. Reddit has an uncanny habit of calling various issues as CIA and western propaganda, so I have decided to write a series of effortposts to debunk these bad faith arguments. If this post is received well, I'm thinking of addressing Venezuela next.
​
The Claim
Many posts that reach the front page regarding the ongoing actions of the People's Republic of China in regards to the Uighur, Kazakh, and other Muslim ethnic groups in the northwest Chinese region of Xinjiang are attacked as being a CIA propaganda effort in the resulting threads. This claim usually stems from the argument that reports of mass detention centers and the actions within are reported by western media and individuals connected to western governments. Thus, I will base most of this effortpost on sources with a demonstrable independence from government funding and influence along with direct sources from the Chinese government itself. (WARNING: Take precautions when opening any of the direct sources from Chinese state media/government. Utilize the Wayback Machine links when possible and refrain from downloading any files unless absolutely necessary.) Additional claims argue that these re-education camps are in fact simply generous efforts by the Chinese government in helping any Xinjiang resident with employment by offering voluntary vocational training.
​
Early Reports
Early reports of the camps in the Xinjiang region were published by the Human Rights Watch on September 2017. The report accused the Chinese government of detaining thousands of Uighurs and other Muslim ethnic individuals for political reasons. However, the Human Rights Watch is a frequent target of those who wish to deny the Uighur genocide by suggesting that the organization is actually funded by nefarious sources. Although HRW does a great job of maintaining a transparent financial page online with annual reports of their financials and where they receive their funds, this may be a fair accusation since there are concerns that the Human Rights Watch may have solicited funds from Saudi Arabia. Fair enough.
However, the more important information from the report are direct quotes from the Chinese government and state media. One particular quote from Xinjiang Yaou describes said camps as

"just like a boarding high school… except the content of learning is different."

Funny enough, the original link leads to an error page as the article was deleted. Luckily, the Wayback Machine has a saved archive of the page from June 3, 2018. Interesting that a state media page that was cited in the Human Rights Watch report was taken down. This isn't an isolated incident either. Nearly all of the linked Chinese state media articles are now deleted but available on Wayback Machine. (due to domain change, not malicious coverup; credit to u/ResponsibleWedding2). Anyways, keep this quote in mind through the rest of the post.
A 2019 white paper published by the State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China additionally states:

"Xinjiang has set up vocational education and training centers in some prefectures and counties."

Section III of the white paper describes the content of education and training as simply consisting of teaching Chinese, legal concepts, civil rights/obligations, and vocational skills to improve employment opportunities. Seems innocuous enough. However, Section II and Section IV of the white paper describes the criteria individuals must meet before being placed in a vocational education/training center:

"The only criterion for education at the centers is whether the trainee has been convicted of unlawful or criminal acts involving terrorism and religious extremism."

Therefore, according to the Chinese government itself, these centers are not simply vocational education centers established to generously help any poor Xinjiang resident with employment but are dedicated to combat convicted terrorists/religious extremists. This immediately debunks one of the standard responses that the Xinjiang camps are benevolent and voluntary economic assistance programs. Keep these statements in mind as well for the remainder of the post.
​
New York Times and ICIJ Leaks
On November 16, 2019, the New York Times released over 400 pages of leaked internal Chinese documents dubbed the Xinjiang Papers. They provided an insight into the Xinjiang facilities, the motivation behind them, and a prescribed response script for family members asking where their detained family members are. The documents provided prewritten responses to questions such as:

"When will my relatives be released? If this is for training, why can’t they come home? Can they request a leave? How will I afford school if my parents are studying and there is no one to work on the farm?"

The documents recommend to say:

“If they don’t undergo study and training, they’ll never thoroughly and fully understand the dangers of religious extremism.”

Thus, the official purpose behind these camps is to supposedly combat religious extremism. This clashes with previous explanations of the camps as vocational education centers dedicated to help Xinjiang residents find employment. Even worse:

"The authorities appear to be using a scoring system to determine who can be released from the camps: The document instructed officials to tell the students that their behavior could hurt their relatives’ scores, and to assess the daily behavior of the students and record their attendance at training sessions, meetings and other activities."

Why do vocational educational centers not allow free leave and why does family behavior play any role in deciding whether they should be able to leave?
Then there's this part from the leaks:

"The line that stands out most in the script, however, may be the model answer for how to respond to students who ask of their detained relatives, 'Did they commit a crime?' The document instructed officials to acknowledge that they had not. 'It is just that their thinking has been infected by unhealthy thoughts,' the script said."

This is the exact opposite of the criteria mentioned in the 2019 white paper that states that the vocational education and training centers are only for convicted terrorists and religious extremists. If the family members have not committed crimes and been convicted of them, there should be no official reason for them to be held within the vocational education and training centers.
The leaks revealed the real criteria for being held within the centers:

"Now it was being applied to humans in directives that ordered, with no mention of judicial procedures, the detention of anyone who displayed 'symptoms' of religious radicalism or antigovernment views. The authorities laid out dozens of such signs, including common behavior among devout Uighurs such as wearing long beards, giving up smoking or drinking, studying Arabic and praying outside mosques."

The documents had no mention of judicial procedures in holding only convicted criminals but had a list of arbitrary "symptoms" that people could be detained in the centers for.
One of the most revealing parts of the leak is an internal investigation and written confession of party official Wang Yongzhi who was in charge of Yarkand of Xinjiang. Although he publicly embraced the new policies in Xinjiang, he privately opposed them in some measure. For example:

"The authorities set numeric targets for Uighur detentions in parts of Xinjiang, and while it is unclear if they did so in Yarkand, Mr. Wang felt the orders left no room for moderation and would poison ethnic relations in the county."

Numeric quotas for Uighur detention when these centers are supposedly only for convicted terrorists and religious extremists? That simply doesn't make sense. The level of internment in Xinjiang is further revealed by this quote:

"The leadership had set goals to reduce poverty in Xinjiang. But with so many working-age residents being sent to the camps, Mr. Wang was afraid the targets would be out of reach."

There are enough Xinjiang residents being placed in the reeducation camps that the economy is being affected. When he ordered the release of 7000 plus camp inmates, he was prosecuted by the party. However, Mr. Wang was not alone.

"Gu Wensheng, the Han leader of another southern county, was jailed for trying to slow the detentions and shield Uighur officials, according to the documents."

In addition, in

"2017, the party opened more than 12,000 investigations into party members in Xinjiang for infractions in the 'fight against separatism,' more than 20 times the figure in the previous year, according to official statistics."

Yet again, if the centers were simply about holding convicted terrorists and religious extremists, there would not be a sudden explosion in resistance by local party officials in Xinjiang.
Now, a common response to inner party crackdowns is that Xi is merely taking down corrupt government officials. Thus, Wang Yongzhi was labelled as a corrupt official taking bribes in state media when he was investigated. However, the internal report specifically states that the reason for his prosecution was that

"'He refused,' it said, 'to round up everyone who should be rounded up.'"

Of course, the New York Times is frequently attacked as being a CIA-controlled western propaganda mouthpiece. These claims largely stem from the New York Times and other American media outlets acknowledging that the US government has the ability to redact or prevent publication of articles. This, of course, conveniently ignores the New York Times having published numerous whistleblower stories on the US government and the CIA itself. However, it does need to be recognized that the most likely response to the Xinjiang Papers is that the documents are fabricated. In fact, that's what the Chinese embassy in the UK told The Guardian in the aftermath of the leak.
Yet, there are still further avenues to prove the reality of the Xinjiang camps. The Chinese embassy statement directly says that:

"The trainees also learn professional skills and legal knowledge so that they can live on their own profession. That’s the major purpose of the centres. The trainees could go home regularly and ask for leave to take care of their children."

This statement yet again contradicts the 2019 white paper stating that the camps are intended for convicted terrorists and religious extremists. It is illogical that convicted terrorists and religious extremists would be allowed free leave. In addition, the embassy statement contradicts the official script denying family members the ability for the camp internees to leave.
Fortunately, there are additional leaks beyond the Xinjiang Papers. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists published the China Cables on November 24, 2019. The ICIJ is a renowned organization spanning 100 countries/territories with 200 plus journalists and 100 plus media organizations cooperating with the ICIJ. The group is well known for several publications including exposés on international white collar crime, tax evasion, private military contractors (especially regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions), and climate change lobbyist corruption. However, they are most well known for the publication of the Panama Papers. This organization is the best response to accusations of CIA control, western propaganda, etc. The certain group of individuals who accuse media reports of the Xinjiang camps as being western propaganda also tend to dislike wealthy and powerful corporations/individuals. The ICIJ has a long track record of reporting on these groups and individuals. The Panama Papers, especially, resulted in the exposure of extremely powerful individuals' actions with international crime, including heads of state, officials, and organizations of national governments. In fact, in specific regard to the CIA, the ICIJ has frequently reported on inappropriate actions by the CIA in the past. An even better example lies in the ICIJ coverage of a CIA operation in Italy exposing the intelligence agency's role in abducting an Egyptian cleric. The best example of all lies in the Panama Papers themselves as the ICIJ report directly names former likely CIA operatives, contractors, and contacts and highlights their use of offshore companies to aid them in espionage or for financial gain. All of these actions don't exactly scream CIA and US control. The ICIJ also lists their financial supporters here to further demonstrate their independent nature.
So why the painstaking lengths to prove the independent nature of the ICIJ? Well, the China Cables are another set of leaked documents that detail how to run the Xinjiang camps and provide an insight into a mass surveillance and predictive policing program in the region. These documents contradict the official Chinese statements on the camp. Here a small series of quotes from the ICIJ report:

The China Cables starkly contradict the Chinese government’s official characterization of the camps as benevolent social programs that provide “residential vocational training” and meals “free of charge.” The documents specify that arrests should be made in almost any circumstance — unless suspicions can be “ruled out” – and reveal that a central goal of the campaign is general indoctrination.

​

The manual reveals a points-based behavior-control system within the camps. Points are tabulated by assessing the inmates’ “ideological transformation, study and training, and compliance with discipline,” the manual says. The punishment-and-reward system helps determine, among other things, whether inmates are allowed contact with family and when they are released.

​

Numerous ex-inmates have reported experiencing or witnessing torture and other abuses, including water torture, beatings and rape. “Some prisoners were hung on the wall and beaten with electrified truncheons,” Sayragul Sauytbay, a former detainee who has been granted asylum in Sweden, told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in October. “There were prisoners who were made to sit on a chair of nails. I saw people return from that room covered in blood. Some came back without fingernails.”

​

The shorter “bulletins,” meanwhile, provide a chilling look inside the Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP), which collects vast amounts of personal information on citizens from a range of sources, and then uses artificial intelligence to formulate lengthy lists of so-called suspicious persons based on this data.

​

“Bulletin No. 14,” for instance, provides instruction on how to conduct mass investigations and detentions after IJOP has generated a lengthy list of suspects. It notes that in a seven-day period in June 2017, security officials rounded up 15,683 Xinjiang residents flagged by IJOP and placed them in internment camps (in addition to 706 formally arrested). The bulletin goes on to note that IJOP had actually produced 24,412 names of “suspicious persons” that week and discusses the reasons for the discrepancy: Some couldn’t be located, others had died but their ID cards were being used by third parties, and so on. The bulletin notes that some students and government officials were “difficult to handle.”

​

In July 2017, at China’s request, Egypt deported at least 12 Uighur students studying at Al-Azhar University, a well-known institution for religious studies, and detained dozens more. In early 2018, Uighurs living abroad reported that security bureaus in Xinjiang were systematically collecting detailed personal information about them from relatives still living there.
“Bulletin No. 2” reveals that such acts were part of a broad policy initiative. Dated June 16, 2017, the two-and-a-half page bulletin deals with foreign citizenship and Uighurs who have spent time abroad. It categorizes Chinese Uighurs living abroad by their home regions within Xinjiang and instructs officials to collect personal information about them. The purpose of this effort, the bulletin says, is to identify “those still outside the country for whom suspected terrorism cannot be ruled out.” It declares that such people “should be placed into concentrated education and training” immediately upon their return to China.

​

Ominously, Bulletin No. 2 points to the role of China’s embassies and consulates in collecting information for IJOP, which is then used to generate names for investigation and detention. It cites an IJOP-generated list of 4,341 people found to have applied for visas and other documents at Chinese consulates or who applied for “replacements of valid identification at our Chinese embassies or consulates abroad.” The bulletin includes instructions for those people to be investigated and arrested “the moment they cross the border” back into China.

​

This sentencing document is from a regional criminal court and describes the sentencing of a Uighur man to 10 years for such ideological “crimes” as telling co-workers “not to say dirty words” or watch pornography — lest they would become “non-believers.” It is written in the Uighur language and is not classified, but is a type of document rarely seen.

​
Several things jump out. First, the point system as described by the Xinjiang Papers leak from the New York Times is extensively corroborated, suggesting the authenticity of those documents. In addition, the statements from the 2019 white paper and the Chinese embassy in the UK (which already contradict each other) are thoroughly debunked. The Xinjiang camps are not being utilized to hold convicted terrorists and religious extremists but to detain countless Uighurs and other Muslim ethnicities for arbitrary suspicious qualities dictated by a mass artificial intelligence dragnet. These individuals are not being convicted and placed in the camps. They are being placed there for merely seeming suspicious. These camps are also not benevolent economic assistance facilities. Why are overseas students studying at educational institutions being forcibly repatriated to gain employment opportunities? They are already pursuing an education in the pursuit of furthering their career. The firsthand witness testimony also displays the reality of the treatment in the camps.
​
Conclusion
The official Chinese statements are that the Xinjiang camps are for holding convicted terrorists and religious extremists or that they are for vocational training to assist with employment and that camp internees are free to leave. Both statements not only contradict one another, but are debunked by the ICIJ report. The ICIJ has been shown to be not only independent of US control but frequently critical of the US government, with numerous reports on its actions. Further, the ICIJ report corroborates the New York Times leaks, which expand upon the reality of the Xinjiang camps. Xinjiang Uighurs and other Muslim ethnic groups are taken for arbitrary qualities such as growing a long beard, studying Arabic, and praying outside of Mosques. The camps are not for vocational training; there is no reason students studying abroad need to be forcibly repatriated and placed in the facilities to make up for a supposed lack of employment opportunity. They also do not hold only convicted terrorists and religious extremists but anyone flagged by a massive artificial intelligence surveillance network.
​
This post is not for convincing people who argue that the Xinjiang camps are propaganda. Those people are arguing out of bad faith and cannot have their minds changed. This post is intended to change the minds of people who may read those arguments and begin to believe that there may be a conspiracy effort to display China in a bad light. I have sourced my information from official statements by the Chinese government and state media along with the ICIJ, a proven independent organization that has frequently exposed inappropriate US actions, to further corroborate the New York Times leaks. I hope this post helps people who may be looking for a refutation to the propaganda claims and an easy link to send in response.
​
TL;DR - The Xinjiang camps are real and target huge numbers of people through a mass surveillance program as evidenced by Chinese primary sources and leaks.

The public version for Hardy's Motion for Status Quo was just filed!!! It's heavily redacted, but I think some MAJOR inferences can be made.
Regrettably, I'm strapped for time, so I don't have sufficient time to review and provide analysis. So, I ask the community: Do you prefer that I upload the order and have you folks analyze it, or does everyone want to wait until my analysis later today?
EDIT #1: Per popular demand, here it is: https://ibb.co/4NNF4Tk
I'll provide my thoughts and comments later. In the interim, PLEASE start the review and critical analysis and provide your input. It would make my job a bit easier, and I have a relatively busy day, so I may not be able to get to it until later.
EDIT # 2:
ALL: Just so there is clarity, the Court has already GRANTED this motion. Hardy has already received his request for a 15-business day notice. See post here: https://www.reddit.com/ATHX/comments/ldlyks/new_development_the_court_grants_hardys_motion/
It just took the Parties multiple days to upload the public version. I would surmise it's for two reasons:
(1) The Parties didn't want the motion released before the Court made its ruling on the Motion; and
(2) They were taking their time to redact the Motion, and had a lengthy meet and confer process to ensure that both parties are in agreement regarding the redacted version. [THIS IS KEY - I DOUBT EITHER SIDE WANTS THIS INFORMATION LEAKED OUT BEFORE ANYTHING IS FINALIZED]
EDIT # 3: Some very insightful comments, keep it up, guys!!
EDIT #4: As an aside, it appears that Hardy's deposition will be moving forward on February 10, 2021 (in two days).

• Deposition Notice: https://ibb.co/4S6x5Cg

EDIT #5:
As an initial matter, there are MANY thoughtful and interesting comments on the Motion posted below by our various members. I enjoyed reading the summaries and theories on Hardy's "angle" and potential motives. I recommend all members review the comments section.
However, as promised, I provide my own thoughts, comments, and summary below.
The first thing that stood out was that the Motion was signed on January 29, 2021. Since we know the public version was filed on February 5, 2021, we can deduce it takes approximately one week after the motion is served. It took another three days to upload it to the docket (February 8, 2021). If nothing else, the timing provides us an idea of how long it takes to turnaround a public version of any filing (i.e. to redact and prepare the motion for public viewing). We may see ATHX's opposition to the motion in the next few days. The interesting thing is that the Court has already GRANTED the motion. Therefore, I'm uploading these motions to provide context and background on each side's position.
I am going to analyze this by focusing on specific language in the motion and my thoughts and comments to each.
In the starting paragraph, the Motion requests that ATHX provide Hardy "with adequate notice before entering into a material partnering transaction or submitting such a transaction for Board of Directors ("Board'') approval."

• Comment: Interesting that Hardy uses the term "material partnering" transaction. Might this mean that ATHX is not required to provide notice for non-material partnerships? The language also appears to expand the notice requirement not only for entry into a transaction but prior to submitting such a transaction for board approval.

Paragraph 3-5: On or about January 18, 2021 (about 3 weeks ago) some type of transaction was memorialized in the minutes that became the BASIS for this motion. To me, this seems to suggest a potential partnership is near. I cannot fathom why Hardy would use the term "material partnering" transaction if it was anything else.
Paragraph 6: Based on my reading of this paragraph, it appears Hardy requested more information about the transaction, but it was not provided.
Paragraph 7: On January 22, 2021, after learning about the information, Hardy's attorney sent a letter to request that ATHX provides all "material information and documents" related to the "Transaction" at least 10 business days before entering into it and or present to Board for Approval OR to provide a 15-business day notice of intent PRIOR TO taking action on the partnership.

• Comment: Considering ATHX filed a proposed order agreeing to provide the 15-business day notice, we already know they had no objections to providing the notice, but ATHX did not want Hardy to know the identity of the putative partner. More in ATHX's proposed order, which is what I think this paragraph is referring to, ATHX did not want Hardy, Healios, or anyone to interfere with the "Transaction." They wanted Hardy to CONFIRM that he would not.

Paragraph 8: "Instead, it offered to give Dr. Kagimoto __________________________but only if he would agree not to______________________. That offer is unfair and unacceptable."

• Comment: If I were to guess, I think this is where they told Hardy they would provide notice, but he had to agree not to interfere, and that they would withhold the identity until 2 days before entering into the transaction.

Paragraph 9: Hardy refers to another case where the Court found that a BOD member was being "frozen out" and that the company operating as a "shadow board." In that case, the Court granted temporary relief.
Paragraph 10: Hardy indicates that the status quo motion is necessary because it prevents harm "he would suffer" if the Transaction was entered into without giving him a reasonable opportunity to learn about it, debate it, and "seek judicial relief."

• Comment: Real question is why would Hardy seek judicial relief if ATHX chose to enter into a partnership? I think this is KEY. In my opinion, among other things, I believe this is the reason ATHX did not want to provide identity was that they did not want this putative partnership being dragged into Court and potentially exposing the putative partner before an agreement is finalized.

Paragraphs 11-16: Background information of how Hardy was excluded from Executive Committee meeting and prevented from learning important information.
Paragraph 17: On October 23, 2020*,* the company confirms that a potential partner agreement is in play. The executive committee ALSO CONSIDERED ...

• Comment 1: Does any remember when the 4th quarter call took place? Is that when Gil announced the "transformative" partner? When did Hardy file his 13d filing? Was it near this time? These are all the thoughts running through my head. Please commence on this if possible.
• Comments 2: The "also considered" language is interesting. Disclaimer: This is PURE SPECULATION on my end, but is it possible they discussed TWO partners? Or, was it an entirely different topic? Or was it some other event? Ultimately, ATHX decided they wanted the information REDACTED. Could it be other funding sources? BARDA? Some other big event?

Paragraph 18: Lists all the "material facts" that were not revealed regarding the transaction. It appears 4 of which are redacted and 2 that are not.

• Comment: Interesting that Hardy wanted more information about the "timing for a potential deal" and the "purpose of the partnering exploration." I can understand the timing, as that is something we ALL want to know. The sooner the better. But the purpose of any partnership should be self-evident.

Paragraph 19-23: On January 18, 2021*,* Hardy delves into a discussion about the Operation Plan and Budget. On Paragraph Hardy includes the sentence "Athersys does not expect________.

• Comment: I'm hoping this is saying that Athersys does not expect the need for dilution during the first quarter. But it's hard to decipher based on the way it's written and the information that was redacted.

Paragraph 24-25: On January 19, 2021, Hardy objects to something and wants to know why he cannot receive information about the "potential transaction" like the rest of the board. His complaint was not answered.

• Comment: I can't tell whether he's objecting to the transaction itself, or the lack of information that is provided to him regarding the putative transaction.

Paragraph 26-27: Confirms that Hardy wanted "material information" related to the "Transaction" and wanted it at least 10 business days to review it. Alternatively, if ATHX did not want to provide the information, Hardy wanted at least 15 business day advanced notices when the Company decides to take action on the "Transaction."

• Comment: This seems to strongly suggest that the "Transaction" is near. If Hardy cannot acquire material information about the contents of the transaction, he at least wants notice of when they will enter into it, so he could take action. But what action? Judicial intervention? Injunction? What?

Paragraphs 28-30: On January 25, 2021, ATHX responds to Hardy's letter and does not dispute Hardy's outlined issues (which we don't know what they are), and does not identify a conflict. Nevertheless, it refused to respond to Hardy's request.
Paragraph 31: To me, this is the paragraph where ATHX says they will provide Hardy notice, but he has to agree not to interfere with the transaction in any way.
Paragraph 32: ATHX tells Hardy they will provide the identity of the putative partner two days before it intends to submit a partnership transaction to Board.
Paragraph 33: Hardy confirms that the conditions in Paragraph 31 and 32 were unacceptable to him and that it would prevent him from taking sufficient action as the other board members would have already approved the transaction, he cannot decipher whether the deal is a good one, and he cannot seek judicial relief.

• Comment: Hardy want involvement with the process. He does not want any limitation in his ability to intervene or seek judicial relief. I believe this confirms what we already knew, and is the reason he rejected ATHX's proposed order.
• Comment 2: Hardy seems to confirm he does not want to create an issue for useful partnerships, but he doesn't want to passively agree with Gil or the board. Maybe he was tired with Gil and the "old boys" club, and wanted to approach his role actively? Or, are there other nefarious reasons behind all of this?

EDIT #6: Fixed a myriad of typos, awkward sentences, and tweaked my impressions. I apologize it was so poorly written. I had a long day yesterday and wanted to get my thoughts out before I went to sleep.
EDIT #7: Timeline of Events:

• On October 23, 2020 - Putative partner is confirmed
• On November 9, 2020 - Gil confirms they are working in entering into a "transformational" partnership
• On November 13, 2020 - Hardy files 13 D/A
• On November __, 2020 - ATHX responds to Hardy 13 D/A filing
• On November 30, 2020 - Hardy files a Complaint in Deleware court.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS: To be continued...
​

As a heads up, there is a lot of quoting here - so this post is ridiculously long.
For those of you who do not know, KJV-Onlyism (KJVO) is the belief that the King James Version is the only accurate English translation and that other modern translations are perversions of this. Often times this belief includes the thought that the KJV is a divinely inspired document (and thus an infallible translation) and that other translations undermine the God-ordained translation in many places. For many, this undermining is an intentional, Satanic assault on the Word of God. For others, this undermining is simply the natural result of tampering with God's word, even if the undermining itself is unintentional.
Over the past week on Reddit I've had several instances of seeing posts or having conversations that brought up KJVO. One of these was actually about the doctrine, the others came later in the discussion/post, which is what put it in my mind to make this one. There are a ton of issues with KJVO, but I won't go into all of them, instead I will let the translators of the KJV do the speaking for me.
When the KJV was first released in 1611, it came with a preface titled The Translators to the Reader/Preface). The preface written by the translators goes through the the reasons that they felt this translation was necessary. It also goes through and responds to many of the challenges brought against them in the making of the translation (many of these challenges are ironically echoed by KJV-Onlyists) as well as communicates the limitations of the translators.

Emphasis on a Common Tongue.

This is the point that will likely get the least traction with KJV-Onlyists, but I think it is worth bringing up. A huge emphasis in this preface is that the Bible should be readily understandable by the readers. This certainly means it should be in the right language, but it also means that it should be in the common iteration of that language.

5.27 Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.
6.1 But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me. [1Cor.14] 6.2 The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not L.atin the finest. 6.3 Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. 6.4 The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous; so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S.Hierome himself called the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many:) 6.5 So the Emperor of Constantinople calleth the Latin tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: 6.6 [2. Tom. Concil. ex edit. Petri Crab.] so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better than barbarous. 6.7 Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, [Cicero 5° de finibus.] there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. 6.8 Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen.29:10]. 6.9 Indeed, without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain ((compelled by circumstances)) to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed. [Isa.29:11]

The reason this point may be the weakest is that the translators here are contrasting different languages. However, following the spirit of what they've written, it seems the logical conclusion that they intend a translation that is easy to understand. The fact is that we don't talk and write in KJV English anymore. It is still English, but many of the words mean different things now or are completely obsolete in every instance except for reading material from this era. For those that are "unlearned," this creates a stumbling block that the translators are obviously attempting to clear.

12.4 Now what can be more available thereto than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand?

Acknowledgement of the validity of previous translations as God's Word & acceptance of future translations

15.16 neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it is written of Origen, that he was the first, [πρωτοπειροι] in a manner, that put his hand to write commentaries upon the Scriptures, and therefore no marvel if he overshot himself many times.
12.1 And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth's of ever-renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.

The translators continuously praise the past work of translators and lean on them for help in their own work. They may be critical at times of certain aspects of a translation, but still regard it as faithful and God's Word.

12.9 Aquila, of whom we spake before ((§ 7:12)), translated the Bible as carefully and as skilfully as he could; and yet he thought good to go over it again, and then it got the credit with the Jews, to be called κατα ακριβειαν, that is, accurately done, as Saint Hierome witnesseth. 12.10 How many books of profane learning have been gone over again and again, by the same translators, by others? Of one and the same book of Aristotle's Ethics, there are extant not so few as six or seven several translations. 12.11 Now, if this cost may be bestowed upon the gourd, which affordeth us a little shade, and which to-day flourisheth but to-morrow is cut down, what may we bestow, nay, what ought we not to bestow, upon the vine, the fruit whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and the stem whereof abideth for ever? 12.12 And this is the Word of God, which we translate.
12.15 Therefore let no man's eye be evil, because his Majesty's is good; neither let any be grieved that we have a Prince that seeketh the increase of the spiritual wealth of Israel, (let Sanballats and Tobiahs do so, which therefore do bear their just reproof but let us rather bless God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. 12.16 For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.

One of the most striking affirmations of other translations is:

13.1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.

Even the meanest translation is the Word of God. And they continue:

13.2 As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. 13.3 For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all [James 3:2]) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. 13.4 No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. 13.5 For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? 13.6 The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express.

In 13.6, we have another example of KJV critics echoing the mentality of KJV-Onlyism.

Acknowledgement of the limitation of translators

The translator's take a moment to touch on the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint or LXX (though they refer to it as the Seventy). About this translation they say:

7.8 It is certain, that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or apostolic men? 7.9 Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they found (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations as though they made a translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded.

The translators seem content to accept a translation as helpful and useful, but still be imperfect and used by the Holy Spirit. However, they address people that believed that the LXX was infallible. That the translators of the LXX were prophets used by God to create and infallble translation, and to this, the KJV translators fervently disagree:

7.15 Yea, Epiphanius above-named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the authors thereof not only for interpreters, but also for prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperor, enjoining the Jews his subjects to use specially the translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were, as it were, enlightened with prophetical grace.
7.16 Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet [Isa.31:3] to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident, (and Saint Hierome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The KJV translators acknowledge that the LXX translators were not inspired prophets but merely very learned men who did there best and stumbled at times. Nowhere in this document do we see the translators implying they are of a different status.

16.6 There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. 16.7 Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S.Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.

We'll get into this more below, but these are given as reasons that the KJV authors used marginal notes. They recognize that some of these things are difficult to translate and could have several legitimate translations. They include marginal notes because they may have gotten it wrong and want the reader to be aware of the different possibilities.

Defense of margins (footnotes) that contain textual variants/translator notes

One criticism brought against modern translations are their use of footnotes. One KJV-Onlyist website claims that the fact that the KJV doesn't have footnotes is one of its benefits saying:

Footnotes are one of the most confusing aspects of the modern versions. The modern version editors remove verses from the text and place it in the footnotes. The readers do not know whether to treat the footnotes as Scripture or man’s words.

But this displays an ignorance of the KJV's origins because the KJV did include footnotes (though, in the margins, hence margins or margin notes). Sometimes these include verse references to help the reader notice when the Bible is referencing another passage, other times its noting a different translation option or textual variant. Example
The above quote is just one example of the KJV's critics sounding like KJV-Onlyists. The translators spend a section remarking on this exact same criticism of their decision to include marginal notes.

16.1 Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken.

They respond with:

16.2 But we hold their judgement not to be so sound in this point. 16.3 For though whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S.Chrysostome saith, [παντα τα αναγκαια δηλα. S.Chrysost. in 2.Thess. cap. 2.] and as S.Augustine, in those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity; [S.Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] 16.4 yet for all that it cannot be dissembled ((disguised)), that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their everywhere plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, 16.5 it hath pleased God in His divine providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem ((be suitable to)) us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to revolve upon modesty with S.Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis: [S.August. li. 8. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. 16.6 There be many words in the Scriptures [απαξ λεγομενα.] which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. 16.7 Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S.Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. 16.8 Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? 16.9 For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. 16.10 Therefore as S.Augustine saith, [S.Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. 16.11 We know that Sixtus Quintus [Sixtus V. præf. Bibliæ.] expressly forbiddeth that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favourers for this conceit. 16.12 They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. 16.13 If they were sure that their high priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege as the dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an oracle, his opinion a decision. 16.14 But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while: they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable; and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

The KJV's translators included notes and they defend that decision. The reasons they give for these things are the reasons that modern translators give for their inclusion of footnotes.
Defense against the accusation of changing God's Word.

4.2 For he that meddleth with men's religion in any part meddleth with their custom, nay, with their freehold; and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering.

The KJV translators note accusations against modern (in their days) translations because often times a verse in their translation disagrees with a verse in a previous translations that had been used for a significant period of time, hundreds of years in some instances.

11.1 Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment. 11.2 Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? 11.3 Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime? (Lacte gypsum malè misceture, saith S.Ireney.) [S.Iren. 3. lib. cap. 19.] 11.4 We hoped that we had been in the right way, that we had had the oracles of God delivered unto us, and that though all the world had cause to be offended and to complain, yet that we had none. 11.5 Hath the nurse holden out the breast, and nothing but wind in it? 11.6 Hath the bread been delivered by the fathers of the Church, and the same proved to be lapidosus, as Seneca speaketh? 11.7 What is it to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not? Thus certain brethren. 11.8 Also the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem, like Sanballat in Nehemiah, mock, as we hear, both at the work and the workmen, saying: What do these weak Jews, etc.? will they make the stones whole again out of the heaps of dust which are burnt? although they build, yet if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stony wall. [Neh.4:3] 11.9 Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to ((forced upon)) the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning Popish Romanists) always go in jeopardy, for refusing to go to hear it? Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabulâ. 11.10 We will answer them both briefly: and the former, being brethren, thus, with S.Hierome, Damnamus veteres? [S.Hieron. Apolog. advers. Ruffin.] Minimè, sed post priorum studia in domo Domini quod possumus laboramus. That is, Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavours of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God.

These are the same kind's of accusations the KJV-Onlyists will bring up when discussing variants between translations. We see the translator's acceptance to change standard translations where they are seen to be faulty.

14.1 Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil ((a false or mocking argument)) and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. 14.2 For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?

For the KJV translators, it is a given that a translation will have faults and when those faults are found out, it is right to correct them. They even grant alterations as a given in the rest of section 14 by giving a brief history of both past and present (for them) alterations and corrections. For space, I will not quote the whole section, but feel free to look for yourself.

Conclusion

The KJV is a wonderful translation for its time. Its influence cannot be overstated and, like the KJV's approach to translations that come before it, I believe that it was used by God for the furthering of his kingdom. It is not an infallible translation. Like all translations, it has its pros and cons. It is indeed God's Word. But so too are today's translations, and this is precisely what the authors of the KJV would have believed, and did believe when discussing "even the meanest" translation.

Alexi Navalny (Алексей Навальный) is the single most visible face of the anti-Putin opposition movement inside Russia, in all its iterations. He is an attorney, political activist and blogger that gained notoriety through his crusade against Vladimir Putin. Primarily through advocacy on YouTube, where his channel as of this writing exceeds 6.4 million subscribers, Navalny highlights the Russian government’s corruption with particular emphasis on theft of state assets by Vladimir Putin and the circle of oligarchs that stand behind him.
Novichok & Context
In August 2020, Navalny was hospitalized in Germany following an assassination attempt with a novichok nerve agent. Novichok nerve agents are a type of binary chemical weapon. Binary chemical weapons are stored and transported in the form of their less toxic chemical precursors, which makes them harder to identify and detect before use. Novichok nerve agents belong to a class of chemical weapons developed by the USSR starting in the early 1970s. While known to be currently manufactured by several other countries outside the current Russian federation, a similar novichok nerve agent was used for the purpose of assassinating Sergei and Yulia Skripal at their home in England in 2018.
Sergei Skripal was a former Russian military intelligence officer who acted as a double-agent for the United Kingdom’s intelligence services from the 1990s to 2000s. Skripal was arrested outside his home in Moscow in December 2004, before being convicted of high treason against the Russian federation for his espionage activities in service of the British crown.
Though sentenced to thirteen years in prison, he was exchanged for several Russian nationals who were imprisoned for life in the United Kingdom as a part of a spy swap in 2010. While the Russian Federation had since abolished capital punishment, many suspected that Skripal’s assassination was intended as a death sentence carried out from afar. A similar fate befell the former FSB and KGB officer, Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned with a polonium isotope six years after he defected to the United Kingdom in the early 2000s with his wife and young son.
And Vladimir Putin’s political rivals have not only died as a result of exposure to chemical weapons or radioactive isotopes. For example, Boris Nemtsov was gunned down while jogging across the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge in Moscow, in front of the Kremlin walls and near Red Square in February 2015, two days before he was supposed to attend a protest against Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Few seriously questioned Putin’s involvement --- particularly in consideration of the fact that Ramzan Kadyrov’s former security chief almost certainly pulled the trigger. A show trial resulted in five Chechens being convicted for Nemstov’s assassination. Beyond Nemtsov, at least Boris Berezovsky, Stanislav Markelov, Anastasia Baburova, Sergei Magnitsky, Anna Politkovskaya, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin all rank among assassinations behind which Putin and his government are the common denominator.
Neither Death Nor Exile
Before his return, one might have expected that Navalny would have availed himself of the opportunity to remain in exile, like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, as opposed to the death he narrowly escaped before. Navalny chose neither.
After having recovered from poisoning by the novichok nerve agent, Navalny returned to Russia on January 17, 2021. Navalny was arrested immediately upon return. Navalny’s arrest was met with global outrage. Navalny was convicted of fraud and embezzlement and faced a suspended sentence several years back --- despite the complete lack any credible evidence whatsoever to substantiate the charges. He has been repeatedly arrested, served multiple prison sentences and he has been physically attacked by Putin’s “supporters” on multiple occasions. In one such incident, a green dye commonly used as an antiseptic was thrown in his face while in a Siberian village. Despite being subject to politically motivated fake criminal charges, assault and scores of other insults, Navalny has persevered.
Two days later, on January 19, 2021, Navalny released a video titled Putin’s Palace - History of the world’s largest bribe, which has amassed more than 110,000,000 views since release. The video alleges that a property valued at approximately $1.37 billion (US) located on the Black Sea was built for Putin’s benefit by the circle of oligarchs that form his inner circle. Putin denies ownership. Yet, BBC coverage from 2012 quotes one of Putin’s business associates as having indicated that every last detail of the Bond-villain style palace was designed according to Putin’s precise specifications.
Around the same time, Navalny released a recorded phone conversation in which he pretended to be an FSB officer, debriefing the FSB agent who poisoned him. In the call, the poisoner apologetically states that the “situation would have turned out differently” if Navalny’s plane had not made the emergency landing that enabled Navalny to receive emergency medical treatment. And of course, the situation might further have ended differently had Navalny not received medical care in Germany. According to the call, the FSB agent placed the combined novichok agent inside Navalny’s underwear.
Based on its OSINT investigation, Bellingcat revealed the FSB team of chemical weapons experts behind Navalny’s poisoning who were likewise involved in a series of other murders of Russian political activists. The details of Bellingcat’s investigation are essentially confirmed by the phone call Navalny staged with the FSB operative who poisoned him --- though the FSB told the Associated Press that Navalny’s video was fake.
Following Navalny’s arrest, the largest protests in more than a decade erupted across Russia. Tens of thousands took to the streets in sub-zero temperatures from Moscow to Yakutsk in which over 5,100 people were arrested in at least 109 cities in each of Russia’s eleven time-zones. Every single major city in Russia saw demonstrations in support of Navalny, prompting unprecedented repression tactics by Russian police.
Rather than backing down in response, the pro-Navalny demonstrations have continued to gain momendum and show no sign of dissipating. Masha Gessen explained that:

[Navalny] has . . . show[n] people what they had always known about the Putin regime but had the option of pretending away. He has shown the depth of the regime’s corruption. He has shown that Putin’s secret police carries out murders. With his return to Russia, he has shown the regime’s utter lack of imagination and inability to plan ahead. He has also shown that, contrary to the Kremlin’s assertions and to conventional wisdom among Western Russia-watchers, there is an alternative to Putin.

Now, there is no clear path forward where Putin isn’t the clear loser. If Putin does manage to eventually kill Navalny, Russia may face international retaliation at least as severe as that imposed on Russia after Sergei Magnitsky’s murder. On the other hand, if Putin does not manage to kill Navalny, Putin’s political rivals will continue to be emboldened, as Putin’s power-base ages and fragments. While the point at which domestic and/or international political pressure rises to the level of an existential threat to Putin’s control remains unclear, Navalny has moved Russia in that direction. Putin has never been weaker than he is now.
Geopolitics of Navalny’s Return
The West is not without leverage against Russia, however limited the options may be. Economic sanctions, in particular, are a preferred means of coercion. For example, in 2012 the Obama Administration signed the bipartisan Magnitsky Act into law, which imposed particularized economic sanctions against individuals implicated in Sergei Magnitsky’s murder in a Moscow prison. Thereafter, numerous other countries passed similar legislation. Magnitsky-style sanctions blacklisted named persons from Western banks and financial institutions and prohibited nearly all forms of commercial transaction with Western entities or individuals. In addition, some states have denied visas, restricted travel and frozen and/or seized assets owned or controlled by individuals subject to such sanctions. Russia maintains that these efforts violate Russian sovereignty and interfere with Russia’s judicial system.
So far, the United States and Canada have condemned the Russian government’s actions in relation to Navalny and the protests supporting him. And beyond Magnitsky-style sanctions, other punitive economic measures have been proposed.
In Europe, two camps have emerged along familiar lines: (1) the United Kingdom, France, and Central and Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania and the Baltic states which historically take more hawkish positions toward Russia and Putin’s government; and (2) commercially entangled Western European countries like Germany and Italy, who seek to compartmentalize economic interests and human rights abuses.
For example, France has already urged Germany to scrap the gas pipeline project, Nord Stream 2, with Russia in response to Navalny’s assassination attempt and Russia’s anti-democratic political repression. Yet, while Berlin has condemned the Kremlin and demanded Navalny’s release, Angela Merkel’s spokeswoman Martina Fietz has made clear that the German government has no intention of changing course with respect to future pipeline construction. Likewise, Armin Laschet, who is the new leader of Merkel’s CDU party criticized any attempt to use Nord Stream 2 as a tool of political leverage against Putin’s government, arguing that:

For 50 years, even in the aggressive times of the Cold War, Germany has bought gas from the Soviet Union, now from Russia. The German government is following the right course.

German Economic Minister Peter Altmaier has likewise spoken out against linking Moscow’s political repression to Nord Stream 2, stating that:

Business relationships and business projects that have existed for decades are one thing and serious human rights violations and our reactions to them are another.

Further, calls within the United Kingdom to impose sanctions on Russian oligarchs Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, who own or control interests in English football teams have been heard throughout Parliament.
But whether it is wise to punish Putin’s Russia for Navalny’s attempted assassination by sanctions or otherwise is another matter entirely. Would imposing sanctions in response to the assassination attempt be nothing more than a symbolic gesture of condemnation? Alternatively, would they be oriented towards actually bringing about democratic reform inside Russia and ending Putin’s regime? Would the symbolic value of imposing sanctions at all be worth the risk that their imposition might wind up strengthening Putin’s hold on power? And of course, would imposing sanctions make Navalny look like the Western puppet that many Putin supporters have alleged?
The theoretical basis for when sanctions should work is straightforward: impose costs greater than whatever benefit the target derives from continuing in the conduct for which he is being sanctioned. And sanctions are typically effective at bringing about the specific harm they are oriented to cause. The problem is that the harm sanctions create almost never translates to actual changes in policy consistent with the sanction’s intent and often bring about unintended consequences.
Russia’s own punitive measures against Ukraine in the mid-2000s provide an illustrative example. Seitz & Zazzaro found that when Russia punished Ukraine for democratic and pro-Western reform by raising gas prices, those affected “were significantly more likely to change their opinions in support of Western-style political and economic systems” --- the exact opposite of what the Kremlin intended. There is more to be said about why sanctions typically fail, but for our purposes it is enough to ask whether the foreseeable risks of unanticipated backlash in response to Western sanctions outweigh any likely benefit.
The Future of Democracy in Russia
Vadim Nikitin and others have argued that Navalny’s decision to return to Russia:

… was an act of such singular courage that it seemed to send a jolt of electricity through the nation’s jaded conscience

It is by no means clear that Navalny will lead Russia to a democratic future. Nor is it clear that Putin will not try --- and succeed --- to assassinate Navalny, again. But this moment belongs to the Russian people, and the United States and Europe would do well to reflect on its significance. For democracy to prevail in Russia, change must arise from within. After all, these protests in support of Navalny mirror those that preceded color revolutions across the Soviet bloc. Likewise, it is worth recalling that six months after Lenin’s return from exile under similar circumstances in Germany, he led the newly formed Soviet Union that emerged from Imperial Russia’s ashes.
What is clear is that external pressure --- whether in the form of sanctions, cancelled business dealings or otherwise --- will reinforce Putin’s control of Russian politics and unite Russians against the West. Several years ago, Navalny was the butt of Russian media late night jokes. Then, even if many Russians themselves supported democratic reform, few saw Navalny as any kind of real transformative figure or alternative to Putin. Now, they take to the streets by the tens of thousands in every major city in Russia across Russia’s eleven time zones to demand his release.

• in other words, tone the anxiety down by understanding the fact that it's an illusion because:
  • you are working towards something .yes , \things might look bleak right now\ but you fool yourself when you lose sight of the fact that TEMPORARY situations don't define your reality
  • i told myself today that if i have the energy to worry about bullshit, im distracting myself of energy to worry about what really matters: what i want and my work to get there.
  • every thought wasted on negativity is another thought that could be spent on improving yourself or do what you need to do to get where you want: there is no excuse (not literally, but it's good to tell yourself this lol)
  • and remember. you can't be ambitious or productive while focusing on what you cannot control.
    • Therefore, the past is IRRELEVANT and don't beat yourself up for it. being ambitous and productive---- DIRECTING ur FOCUS ONLY on what you CAN control(present & future). Hope this helps.
  • --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

about me : it's long- sharing my story solely to talk about where i'm coming from. if it's long, please just don't read & skip it lol. main points are first & last 3 bullets. sorry if there are typos- Took forever just to write this out \*

• I'm a 26 , currenly living in my car as a result of father accusing me of doing something which I did not do & consequently kicking me out right before he went back & told my mother 'I have one last chance". sleeping in my car because I don't think the conditions which I have to meet for his"once chance" after being (falsely accused) are fair since they include not speaking to my younger brother when he does something that negatively impacts the living conditions of others. i brush my teeth, cook, etc at home but sleep in my car & apply for jobs in the library to escape from a lot of intergenerational trauma.I come from a really broken and dysfunctional home y'all would never know.
• I dropped out of Cornell University (yes, the one in Ithaca, New York) where I got in after transferring from community college. Didn't have to report SAT scores to get in as a transfer, also not URM nor a legacy. I went there against my own will, because that was the only way I was going to receive help from dad to have undergrad paid. Throughout undergrad, I knew very little about being financially indepndent & had little confidence in doing so because I've always been taught (And witnessed others doing) completely the opposite. Once I was 25, obviously I knew all of this was essentially fabricated lies told by dad to use me as a prop to cater to his narcissitic desires. HE literally stopped speaking to me at 13 just because I didn't dress the way he wanted and never said a word to me after that (until I got help for him to pay for my college in exchange for him controlling my academic career) unless the subject matter was about the bare minimum.
• I dropped out of Cornell because while it was a great school , i was sent there to fulfill my parents' dreams, not mine. not only that, I was doing horribly in the field that i was *sent to major in* , which wasn't because of the school but rather because I have always been made to major in something entirely different. Excelled in AP social science, read presidential biographies & history books for bed time when I was a kid. Tried doing an internal transfer to change my major, couldn't do it there b/c of my transfer status. Because I was barely getting by in studying a major that catered to my father's desired career outcomes for me at the expense of destroying my own career goals, I was really scared about my future. Again, I had very little faith in myself of being financially independent & didn't know I had other options. So I had panic attacks every waking second unless I was listening to a lecture or sleeping...I feared for my life, woke up every morning during the last month screaming. So I left. Once I left, things got a bit worse: for months, I couldn't sleep, I couldn't formulate sentences, I couldn't speak, I couldn't comprehend what others were saying to me..my existence felt surreal. I felt like I was in a glass cage, because I coudln't even interact with the world around me as I couldn't speak nor even recall what even those in my immediate family were saying to me for MONTHS.
• The craziest part is, before all that, I recovered from from having 5 years worth of depressive episodes that took place as a result of my dysfunctional home environment. In the face of statistics reporting the outcomes of those who come from where I come from, I was on track to graduate college in 4 years right after high school. I was not addicted to anything. I didn't care about boyfriends and never had one for that reason . I spent my weekends either studying or hanging out with good friends who cared about me. Not only did i manage a solid academic performance, I stayed away from bad substances & bad people, in addition to not experience a single mental illness for 3 years. I volunteered every weekend. I struggled with feeling like shit all through my childhood because of my home, but for the first time for 3 years I COMPLETELY forgot what it was like to be depresed. Then it all changed once I allowed my father back into my life, and once he exploited my financial vulnerability by forcing me into something that wasn't beneficial to me nor my career. He took advantage of the fact that from a young age, he stripped any confidence I could ever have in financing college on my own by lying to me (for 10 years) about what my future would be like if i didn't listen to him. and while I was depressed when I was younger, for the first time in MY LIFE, I was diagnosed with 3 mental illnesses at once. for the first time in my LIFE, I couldn't speak, read, write, or hear for MONTHs. for the first time in my LIFE, I was diagnosed with a form of bipolar disease. and it all happened because my father re-enetred my life (after cutting me off at age 13) , for which he only even did upon me basically agreeing to allow him to vicariously live through me by being the kind of daughter to do what he told me he always wished he had done, but did not do. I allowed this because (at the time) I wasn't familiar with how to do it on my own.
• Once I was able to speak , read, write, and listen again, I transferred to UT Austin because they had the major I wanted to study which I also needed for my career. UT is also where I wanted to go since childhood. Dad agreed to UT this time, & I bought into him guilt tripping me (big time) for certain things, so I was still under his control. I remember how scared I'd feel whenever he'd call. Although I regained my cognitive abilities, I still struggled with a daily 8 hr (per day) addiciton to scratching my hair and talking to men on sex websites. That's because the relationship with my former close friends dwindled when I returned home & couldn't speak hear etc for a few months. Despite being an extrovert and a former social butterfly, I never made many friends at UT because I'd spend 4-6 hours a day after class scratching my head. When that addiction was over, I had to catch up on what I was behind on as a result of scratching my head. I always prided myself on valuing myself based on personal traits, but it was hard to love myself for my pesonality & intelligence when it's like those things became deeply scarred after feeling like shit at Cornell. So it was much easier to just talk to people on the internet who would give me attention when I needed human contact. For the previous 20 years of my life, I've never been addicted to anything. These addictions literally arose (FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME) after I was exposed to certain experiences at cornell which only occurred as a result of allowing father into my life . Anyway, despite struggling with a minimum of a 56 hour weekly addiction, being starved most of the time (dad didn't like me eating out on his card etc..wanted me to cook which was hard to do as an addict) , and living in my worst nightmare (living in an apartment with cockroaches for three years..roaches scare the fuck out of me ), I didn't obliterate my academic careegrades which declined pretty signficantly from the 4.0 I maintained before speaking to dad again. Despite all that, I still have a GPA that would allow me to for either gain admission to elite law schools (including cornell) or obtain signficant scholarships to anywhere else granted that I kill the entrance test to get into law school. By the way, the sole reason I mention *elite* law schools is to refer to what is still on the table for me DESPITE what i've been though in hopes of inspiring.
• Recently graduated with a degree in political science in September. Took an honors course last semester,finished my last 3 semesters with university honors . didn't settle for the easy courses- took some of the most rigourous reading and writing intensive courses of my major each semester. Was told many times by a professor (who did some research for the Supreme Court) that he thought I had a lot of insight about the law and was really surprised why I didn't get like A's on the tests, and a few former study buddies who I took that class with & whom are now in law school told me the same thing. remember him e-mailing me a extra judicial opinions (outside of class work )just to get my opinion about them after I spoke to him in office hours about assigned reading material . It was because when i wasn't in class I was scratching my head lol which i didn't say.
• Since graduating, I have spent a few hours every day journaling and have done so for month. Before i transferred to college, I was not addicted to anything, nor did I really have any mental illnesses, both of which changed once I resurrected ties with my father again.
• I've been spending tons of hours journaling and rewiring my brain to unfuck myself & unlearn whatever i learned by allowing my father back into my life again. THis is an effort to regain core beliefs & the strong sense of self that I had which allowed me to succeed before I started speaking to him again. I know that I will never completely feel the same and nor is that my goal. I have simply been journaling & rewiring my brain not to go back to the way it was, but rather to regain control of my mind in general. So far, it's done wonders for me. Since graduating, i have gotten rid of both addictions which i used to do 8 hrs/day every day . Unfortunately after I regained the stamina I needed to move on with my life, the next few months were spent literally playing police officer to look out for my parents for all the B.S. that my siblings made them go through every day. In doing so, I was accused of doing something I didn't do, got kicked out but am cool with that because instead of spending every day staying in a broken home simply to look out for those in it who don't care about mine, I can finally focus on myself again. Unless they kicked me out, I was just too concerned for my parents to be occupied with anything other than defending them against my siblings' bad behavior towards them in their own home. I've never really gave a fuck about what my siblings used to do and have always been career driven, but again that changed once I became more sensitive in general as a result of the mental health issues I experiences as a result of resuming contact with father.
• so here i am, a recent college grad who was also regained her sense of self & has stopped the adictions that were plaguing her for six years. I've unfucked myself of the false narratives my father made me believe about myself. I will never be the happy go lucky person I was before my I was exposed to traumatic experiences against my own will, but I am an optimistic person who has clarity and control over my mind now. currently unemployed & sleeping in my car. I have financial goals i want to take care of: having my own place (in my favorite city with my favorite pet) , emergency savings, advanced rent, etc that I'm excited to obtain. Once im secure those and unless i change my mind, I plan on going to law school and financing it myself to graduate with minimal debt. Since my dad controlled the college career I worked so hard in high school to even obtain without any of his help, I am going to rewrite my narrative and control the next phase of my life, which includes being the best godamn law student at the very best school i can get into since that's what i wanted to at age 15. I help myself manifest this by keeping my favorite books with me at night, including pictures of my favorite U.S presidents as I wanted to be one of them at the age of 8 and still do.
• I have to remind myself of this post because I don't care how crazy it seems,since it was crazy for me to have:
  • even got into cornell as a non URM, non legacy given where I came from
  • re-enroll as a full time student at university just 3-5 months after I couldn't speak, listen, read, write, or concentrate after experiencing montths of constant panic attacks each day for MONTHS
  • even graduated UT as someone who was CONSTANTLY ADDICTED to something when she wasn't in class, eating , or sleeping while still having the GPA to get into top 10 law schools (I literally only mention TOP not to say that I will go there, but to show what is possible for me to achieve despite what i've been trhough to inspire others) ..
    • while also taking the most rigorous reading & writing intesnive courses each semester..while taking those courses and being told by a professor in those courses that I was able to speak about the law intelligently & come to class well prepared, etc...
  • even graduated UT as someone who was even graduated UT as someone who was CONSTANTLY ADDICTED to something when she wasn't in class, eating , or sleeping; even graduated as UT to someone who most of the time was starved of food, even graduated UT as someone who didn't have a car, as someone who didn't have more than 3 friends each year, and as someone who lived her worst nightmare for 3 years by living in an apartment with roaches.
  • gotten rid of my addictions, gained independence by telling father I will be making my own decisions from now on, & unfucked myself of subconscious beliefs that allowed what is stated in the above bullets to even occur

Race Information

• Name: 10K TT
• Date: January 16, 2020
• Distance: 10K
• Location: Dallas, TX
• Time: 38:40 (6.15mi) 38:55 adjusted
• Strava: https://www.strava.com/activities/4629629857
• Race day photos: https://imgur.com/a/y3D7OpA
• Last lap: https://youtu.be/_iu93nOROac
• Realization that I had just broken 39: https://youtu.be/rZaqmkpKoA4

Goals

Goal	Description	Completed?
A	42min	Yes
B	40min	Yes
C	avg 6:15/mi	Yes

​

Splits

Mile	Time
1	6:10.6
2	6:14.2
3	6:12.5
4	6:17.4
5	6:18.5
6	6:22.3
.2 (accidentally ran only .15) I explain below**	1:04

Training

14 weeks ago I committed to a 10k challenge after some fun and competitive trash talking with my former HS coach, close friends and teammates from high school.
Until today I had never raced a 10k. And maybe more alarming is that my last competitive race was State Cross Country Championships back in 2001.
With Covid lockdown I decided I'd try to get back into running after several failed attempts through the years. A lack of discipline and pride got in the way of smart training. The mantra, ‘once a runner always a runner’ plagued me as I treated every run like a race, which led to frequent injuries.
Without exaggerating, between July ’20 (when I started building a base) and October’20 I logged more miles than I have in the last 19 years combined. I kept all my runs below 143 HR which was humiliatingly slow. Both my former HS coach and solidly fit running buddies got a good laugh at my daily activity on Strava which led to good banter in the comment section. It’s true — it was hilarious and as a good sport, I welcomed the jokes and often incited them. After all, it wasn't lost on me that a former 16min 5k guy was now celebrating 10-11min mile pace. But as the jokes continued, so too did my progress. I had gone from running 13 min pace in July to 8:30 pace by November all without a single injury.
Training slow to run fast was not only a foreign concept to some of my friends from back home but it was also foreign to me. Would it work? No idea. But what I did know was that I needed to do something radically different to build a base while staying injury free.
As the trash talking picked up, it began to fuel my competitive spirit which led to Coach Marshall (HS Coach) setting a date for a race. The question was what distance and when? Without much thought, I made a bold proclamation that, “In twelve to sixteen weeks I would kick your asses in a 10k,” to which most, if not all, immediately responded with some form of "bet." In hindsight, I don’t know WTF I was thinking. I had never raced a 10k and really, 12 weeks?! It would seem like I would need a miracle to pull this one off but I had nothing to lose, and besides i was getting in shape and benefiting from all the chatter.
The stage was now set. I had 12 weeks (possibly 16 if I got lucky) to prepare for a 10K TT.
I began googling how to run a 10k before stumbling on Reddit's advanced running community. There I found u/Free_Running_Plans (Justin) and had him build me a customized 10k plan that was highly tailored and thoughtful. I told Justin I wanted to run a blistering 47min 10k! Because, ya know, in my mind a 47min 10k was flying! I followed 90% of the workouts and stuck to the overall plan pretty judiciously. I was gaining confidence and training was tracking well. But by mid-November a few friends decided to drop a bomb during a local mid-missouri race -- they went 39:32 and 37:16, respectively for 10k. A full 10 minutes faster than my goal pace! How TF was I going to contend with that??
Feeling deflated, and having just come off an inspiring 19:23 5K TT (previous 21:42 six weeks prior), I went back to Justin @ u/Free_Running_Plans and asked him rather circuitously if it were possible for me to break 40min for 10k...in 6-8 weeks😅 His response...

It's not impossible for you to make that jump with consistent steady training and solid workouts. I do have serious reservations about you pushing the pace every day, as well as then incorporating workouts, strides, etc. It's begging for injury.

I read that email probably a dozen times. He was right — the risk of injury was a very likely outcome. But it was the first sentence that did it for me —

It’s not impossible…

So I stuck to the plan but really began to rip hard on the workouts, sometimes shaving as much as 10-15 seconds off of what was prescribed. Between the plan and Coach Marshall's (HS Coach) sprinkle of vomit inducing workouts that would eventually lead me to buying a proper life insurance policy for my family (true story), I was feeling better about my chances but knew I still had a long way to go...
The last super hard workout I completed came 1 week before the race—6x1 mile at 615 pace with 35 sec recovery. 613. 614. 613. 614. 613. 612! This shit left me sprawled out on the track like a corpse. I went balls out and and came away with something that had been sorely missing-- the confidence on race day to go sub 40.

Pre-race

Got 8 hours of sleep. Woke up at 515a. Had a cup of black coffee and 2 packets of my kids oatmeal -- went with maple syrup and brown sugar flavor. Also had a piece of toast with peanut butter with a cup of water.
By 630a I got to the track and jogged a mile in an insulated jacket and tights to keep warm. No stretching. Ran two 400s at close to 6:15 pace with a one lap recovery jog between the reps. By then I was feeling pretty good and decided to swap out shoes and shed the jacket and pants.
After a few light strides I got the show on the road at exactly 7:35. Quite a bit delayed as I was trying to setup a camera to film the TT.

Race

Mile 1 / 2: got out hard and came through mile 1 in 6:10. Felt pretty relaxed here but knew I might pay for this later. "Later" came earlier than expected and by the end of mile 2, doubt began creeping in. I crossed the second mile in 6:14.
Mile 3/4: went to double press my earbuds to skip a song but my fingers were so cold that I wound up pushing them out of my ear. The earbud saga continued and on the next lap, Siri decided to turn down the volume to where I could barely hear the music. With my breathing labored, I took one desperate attempt to raise the volume. “SIRI , MAX VOLUME!” I yelled to which she replied "I didn't catch that..." At this point I said to myself 'fuck it' and chucked the $250 earbuds to the ground. And it was at this point I realized I may have made a mistake. Without music I was now forced to listen to myself for the remainder of the race, panting like a wounded lion. Despite all the distractions I squeezed out 6:12 for Mile 3. Mile 4 I could feel myself really slowing. This was the hardest mile for me mentally and the lactic acid had found its residence and wasn't about to leave my legs. I tried shortening my stride, thinking that more contact with the track would propel me forward because of my fancy asics carbon plated shoes?! Not so much as I clicked off 6:17.4.
Mile 5/6: the struggle continued on mile 5. Despite my best attempt to stay on pace, I was crumbling. At one point, my watch indicated I was running 6:20 pace. Came in at 6:18.5. What was left to race could be characterized as survival. I was gassed and felt the wheels falling off. I literally had no idea if I was even on track to break 40. Ended up at 6:22.3 for mile 6 and then gave it everything I had to close in a 1:04 (5:30 pace) for the remaining .2. All credit to my brother for motivating me on the back stretch. Without him chasing me and yelling I wouldn't have been able to get up on my toes to close as hard as I did.

Post Race

Unaware of my exact splits, I just kind of assumed that I was now fighting to just break 40min. But when I crossed the line and saw 38:40 register on my watch (which I later had to adjust to 38.55. I explain below) I collapsed and tears came over me. I couldn’t hold it back. I’ve never been emotional after a race except for the time I thought I got our 4x800 disqualified at sectionals - Doh! It was such a good feeling and even better having my only brother there to share in the moment. As for my competition, some of the guys pulled up with injuries unfortunately and the others are now waiting for the snow and ice to clear before attempting their 10k effort in Missouri.
I’m still shocked to be honest. From wanting to run a 47min 10k fourteen weeks ago to running 38:55 yesterday. I can honestly say I left it all on the track. Couldn’t be happier. Health is wealth and I'm thrilled to be fit after all these years and incidentally 20 lbs lighter (170 lbs). To my HS Coach and buddies back home, y'all are the f-ing best and you know it. The trash-talking, laughs and encouragement is what got me through this. To my supportive wife who is still tirelessly working COVID frontline and has to endure my crazy day-to-day, I love you. Justin @ u/Free_Running_Plans, can't thank you enough for building a customized plan and supporting me and my endless emails throughout this journey -- y'all, don't sleep on this man! When I wanted to deviate you reeled me back in. To my brother, if you’re lurking around here, I don't have to say it. Love you, man. And seeing you run 8 miles yesterday for the first time rivals the feeling of me running 38:55. Neither of these things I thought would ever happen! lol Keep it up big bro!👊🏾☄️
***adjusted the finish time as I stopped my watch too soon, it appears. 25 laps = 10,000m. I'm an absolute idiot. Looks like I ran only 9910m so I was 90 meters short of 25 laps. Because I was closing at 430 pace towards the end of the last lap, I used that to compute a rough time differential for the remaining 90 meters ~ an additional 15 sec which is 440 pace (10 seconds slower than what I was actually closing in). So 38:40 + 15 sec = 38:55
Best case scenario was 6:15 pace and I hit exactly that ~ 6:15.78 pace. 🙌🏾
Below is a video of the last lap (voice actor of the wounded lion is yours truly) and an emotional video of me realizing I had just run 38:40 ( or 38:55).
https://youtu.be/_iu93nOROac
https://youtu.be/rZaqmkpKoA4

Race Information

• Name: 10K TT
• Date: January 16, 2020
• Distance: 10K
• Location: Dallas, TX
• Time: 38:40 (6.15mi) 38:55 adjusted
• Strava: https://www.strava.com/activities/4629629857
• Race day photos: https://imgur.com/a/y3D7OpA
• Last lap: https://youtu.be/_iu93nOROac
• Realization that I had just broken 39: https://youtu.be/rZaqmkpKoA4

Goals

Goal	Description	Completed?
A	47min	Yes
B	40min	Yes
C	Avg 6:15/mi	Yes

Splits

Mile	Time
1	6:10:62
2	6:14.23
3	6:12.54
4	6:17:45
5	6:18.56
6	6:22.3
.2 (accidentally ran only .15) I explain below**	1:04

Training

14 weeks ago I committed to a 10k challenge after some fun and competitive trash talking with my former HS coach, close friends and teammates from high school.
Until today I had never raced a 10k. And maybe more alarming is that my last competitive race was State Cross Country Championships back in 2001.
With Covid lockdown I decided I'd try to get back into running after several failed attempts through the years. A lack of discipline and pride got in the way of smart training. The mantra, ‘once a runner always a runner’ plagued me as I treated every run like a race, which led to frequent injuries.
Without exaggerating, between July ’20 (when I started building a base) and October’20 I logged more miles than I have in the last 19 years combined. I kept all my runs below 143 HR which was humiliatingly slow. Both my former HS coach and solidly fit running buddies got a good laugh at my daily activity on Strava which led to good banter in the comment section. It’s true — it was hilarious and as a good sport, I welcomed the jokes and often incited them. After all, it wasn't lost on me that a former 16min 5k guy was now celebrating 10-11min mile pace. But as the jokes continued, so too did my progress. I had gone from running 13 min pace in July to 8:30 pace by November all without a single injury.
Training slow to run fast was not only a foreign concept to some of my friends from back home but it was also foreign to me. Would it work? No idea. But what I did know was that I needed to do something radically different to build a base while staying injury free.
As the trash talking picked up, it began to fuel my competitive spirit which led to Coach Marshall (HS Coach) setting a date for a race. The question was what distance and when? Without much thought, I made a bold proclamation that, “In twelve to sixteen weeks I would kick your asses in a 10k,” to which most, if not all, immediately responded with some form of "bet." In hindsight, I don’t know WTF I was thinking. I had never raced a 10k and really, 12 weeks?! It would seem like I would need a miracle to pull this one off but I had nothing to lose, and besides i was getting in shape and benefiting from all the chatter.
The stage was now set. I had 12 weeks (possibly 16 if I got lucky) to prepare for a 10K TT.
I began googling how to run a 10k before stumbling on Reddit's running community. There I found u/Free_Running_Plans (Justin) and had him build me a customized 10k plan that was highly tailored and thoughtful. I told Justin I wanted to run a blistering 47min 10k! Because, ya know, in my mind a 47min 10k was flying! I followed 90% of the workouts and stuck to the overall plan pretty judiciously. I was gaining confidence and training was tracking well. But by mid-November a few friends decided to drop a bomb during a local mid-missouri race -- they went 39:32 and 37:16, respectively for 10k. A full 10 minutes faster than my goal! How TF was I going to contend with that??
Feeling deflated, and having just come off an inspiring 19:23 5K TT (previous 21:42 six weeks prior), I went back to Justin @ u/Free_Running_Plans and asked him rather circuitously if it were possible for me to break 40min for 10k...in 6-8 weeks😅 His response...

It's not impossible for you to make that jump with consistent steady training and solid workouts. I do have serious reservations about you pushing the pace every day, as well as then incorporating workouts, strides, etc. It's begging for injury.

I read that email probably a dozen times. He was right — the risk of injury was a very likely outcome. But it was the first sentence that did it for me —

It’s not impossible…

So I stuck to the plan but really began to rip hard on the workouts, sometimes shaving as much as 10-15 seconds off of what was prescribed. Between the plan and Coach Marshall's (HS Coach) sprinkle of vomit inducing workouts that would eventually lead me to buying a proper life insurance policy for my family (true story), I was feeling better about my chances but knew I still had a long way to go...
The last super hard workout I completed came 1 week before the race—6x1 mile at 615 pace with 35 sec recovery. 613. 614. 613. 614. 613. 612! This shit left me sprawled out on the track like a corpse. I went balls out and and came away with something that had been sorely missing-- the confidence on race day to go sub 40.

Pre-race

Got 8 hours of sleep. Woke up at 515a. Had a cup of black coffee and 2 packets of my kids oatmeal -- went with maple syrup and brown sugar flavor. Also had a piece of toast with peanut butter with a cup of water.
By 630a I got to the track and jogged a mile in an insulated jacket and tights to keep warm. No stretching. Ran two 400s at close to 6:15 pace with a one lap recovery jog between the reps. By then I was feeling pretty good and decided to swap out shoes and shed the jacket and pants.
After a few light strides I got the show on the road at exactly 7:35. Quite a bit delayed as I was trying to setup a camera to film the TT.

Race

Mile 1 / 2: got out hard and came through mile 1 in 6:10. Felt pretty relaxed here but knew I might pay for this later. "Later" came earlier than expected and by the end of mile 2, doubt began creeping in. I crossed the second mile in 6:14.
Mile 3/4: went to double press my earbuds to skip a song but my fingers were so cold that I wound up pushing them out of my ear. The earbud saga continued and on the next lap, Siri decided to turn down the volume to where I could barely hear the music. With my breathing labored, I took one desperate attempt to raise the volume. “SIRI , MAX VOLUME!” I yelled to which she replied "I didn't catch that..." At this point I said to myself 'fuck it' and chucked the $250 earbuds to the ground. And it was at this point I realized I may have made a mistake. Without music I was now forced to listen to myself for the remainder of the race, panting like a wounded lion. Despite all the distractions I squeezed out 6:12 for Mile 3. Mile 4 I could feel myself really slowing. This was the hardest mile for me mentally and the lactic acid had found its residence and wasn't about to leave my legs. I tried shortening my stride, thinking that more contact with the track would propel me forward because of my fancy asics carbon plated shoes?! Not so much as I clicked off 6:17.4.
Mile 5/6: the struggle continued on mile 5. Despite my best attempt to stay on pace, I was crumbling. At one point, my watch indicated I was running 6:20 pace. Came in at 6:18.5. What was left to race could be characterized as survival. I was gassed and felt the wheels falling off. I literally had no idea if I was even on track to break 40. Ended up at 6:22.3 for mile 6 and then gave it everything I had to close in a 1:04 (5:30 pace) for the remaining .2. All credit to my brother for motivating me on the back stretch. Without him chasing me and yelling I wouldn't have been able to get up on my toes to close as hard as I did.

Post Race

Unaware of my exact splits, I just kind of assumed that I was now fighting to just break 40min. But when I crossed the line and saw 38:40 register on my watch (which I later had to adjust to 38.55. I explain below) I collapsed and tears came over me. I couldn’t hold it back. I’ve never been emotional after a race except for the time I thought I got our 4x800 disqualified at sectionals - Doh! It was such a good feeling and even better having my only brother there to share in the moment. As for my competition, some of the guys pulled up with injuries unfortunately and the others are now waiting for the snow and ice to clear before attempting their 10k effort in Missouri.
I’m still shocked to be honest. From wanting to run a 47min 10k fourteen weeks ago to running 38:55 yesterday. I can honestly say I left it all on the track. Couldn’t be happier. Health is wealth and I'm thrilled to be fit after all these years and 20 lbs lighter (170 lbs). To my HS Coach and buddies back home, y'all are the f-ing best and you know it. The trash-talking, laughs and encouragement is what got me through this. To my supportive wife who is still tirelessly working COVID frontline and has to endure my crazy day-to-day, I love you. Justin @ u/Free_Running_Plans, can't thank you enough for building a customized plan and supporting me and my endless emails throughout this journey -- y'all, don't sleep on this man! When I wanted to deviate you reeled me back in. To my brother, if you’re lurking around here, I don't have to say it. Love you, man. And seeing you run 8 miles yesterday for the first time rivals the feeling of me running 38:55. Neither of these things I thought would ever happen! lol Keep it up big bro!👊🏾☄️
***adjusted the finish time as I stopped my watch too soon, it appears. 25 laps = 10,000m. I'm an absolute idiot. Looks like I ran only 9910m so I was 90 meters short of 25 laps. Because I was closing at 430 pace towards the end of the last lap, I used that to compute a rough time differential for the remaining 90 meters ~ an additional 15 sec which is 440 pace (10 seconds slower than what I was actually closing in). So 38:40 + 15 sec = 38:55
Best case scenario was 6:15 pace and I hit exactly that ~ 6:15.78 pace. 🙌🏾
Below is a video of the last lap (voice actor of the wounded lion is yours truly) and an emotional video of me realizing I had just run 38:40 ( or 38:55).
https://youtu.be/_iu93nOROac
https://youtu.be/rZaqmkpKoA4

Welcome to Lost in the Sauce, keeping you caught up on political and legal news that often gets buried in distractions and theater… or a global health crisis.
NOTE: This post focuses on the events from roughly the 13th to the 19th. Events from this week (e.g. pardons) will be in the next post.
Housekeeping:

• HOW TO SUPPORT: I know we are all facing unprecedented financial hardships right now. If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
  
• NOTIFICATIONS: You can signup to receive notifications when these posts are done.
  

The grift intensifies

A campaign shell company created in part by Jared Kushner secretly paid the president’s family members and spent more than $600 million. The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center argued in an FEC complaint that the company, American Made Media Consultants Corporation (AMMC), functioned as a “clearinghouse” to illegally “launder” campaign funds and shield the identities of the ultimate recipients of payments. Lara Trump and the nephew of VP Pence previously served on the board of AMMC when it made massive spending decisions.
The Campaign Legal Center also filed an FEC complaint against a pro-Trump super PAC for making “illegal, unreported, and excessive” contributions to the Trump campaign. The PAC Our American Century is accused of illegally paying to distribute an advertisement video produced by the Trump campaign across several critical swing states in violation of federal campaign contribution laws.
Remember the DOJ bribery-for-pardons investigation? Last week we learned that the billionaire advocating for a pardon promised to donate $6 million to support President Trump… and may have done so. While donations from the man, Sanford Diller, do not appear on Trump’s federal campaign reports, ABC News reports that the $6 million in contributions were actually “made in 2016 to a pro-Trump nonprofit political committee, which -- unlike a campaign -- is not required by federal law to disclose its donors or donation amounts.”

Diller had arranged for his friend, Berkeley psychologist Hugh Baras, to retain help from [Kushner lawyer] Abbe Lowell, one of the most prominent and powerful D.C. attorneys. Documents reviewed by ABC News indicate that Lowell prepared a memo to argue the case. But no pardon was ever issued and Baras, who was 73 at the time, served out his sentence.

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) and House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) are investigating whether Jared Kushner manipulated foreign policy to obtain a billion-dollar bailout from Middle Eastern officials. The events in question involve Kushner pushing the administration to support a blockade against Qatar out of possible “retaliation” for the country’s refusal to invest in a distressed Kushner property.

Wyden: “...we remain troubled that Qatari funds ended up in a billion dollar rescue for a company directly tied to Mr. Kushner while he remained a senior White House official deeply involved in formulation of U.S. policy towards the Middle East.”

Turning Point USA held two large events in Florida this weekend, including one at Mar-a-Lago, sparking concerns of additional super-spreader events. On Friday, the conservative organization held its annual winter gala at Trump’s club, putting money in his pocket. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell also attended.

Photos posted on social media showed Friday’s maskless gala crowd mingling in apparent violation of Palm Beach County’s coronavirus protocols...local governments have urged residents not to attend crowded gatherings such as the one at Mar-a-Lago on Friday.

Trump is reportedly planning on spending his post-presidency time at Mar-a-Lago, but his neighbors are revolting, asserting he cannot legally reside there. In 1993, Trump signed an agreement with Palm Beach that allowed him to convert the property to a moneymaking club. “Per the use agreement of 1993, Mar-a-Lago is a social club, and no one may reside on the property,” wrote Reginald Stambaugh, a lawyer representing the DeMoss family, which has a property next to Mar-a-Lago.
Further reading: Eric Lipton of the NYT breaks down how pro-Trump Super PACs are lining the Trump family’s pockets: “Donors write checks to a SuperPAC that supports Trump. SuperPAC writes checks to Trump family.”

Revolving door

Trump has been itching to fire FBI Director Christopher Wray in recent months, reportedly coming so close to doing so that administration lawyers had to talk him out of it. White House counsel Pat Cipollone warned Trump that ousting Wray could be seen as retaliation and put him in potential legal jeopardy.
Speaking of Cipollone, Trump is also apparently close to firing him, as well. According to Axios, Trump is particularly “fed up” with Cipollone because the attorney has spoken out against some of the more extreme efforts to overturn the results of the election.

Trump thinks everyone around him is weak, stupid or disloyal — and increasingly seeks comfort only in people who egg him on to overturn the election results. We cannot stress enough how unnerved Trump officials are by the conversations unfolding inside the White House… Trump has even been asking advisers whether they can get state legislatures to rescind their electoral votes. When he’s told no, he lashes out even more, said a source who discussed the matter with the president.

Appointees:

• Rudy Giuliani’s son, Andrew Giuliani, and former acting director of national intelligence Ric Grenell were appointed to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council.
  
• Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk was appointed to the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission, which Trump created to advance “patriotic education.”
  
• Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the former aide to Michael Flynn who was fired by H. R. McMaster, was appointed to Chair the Public Interest Declassification Board.
  
• Anthony Tata, the Pentagon's acting policy chief, has been appointed to the Board of Visitors to the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
  
• Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was part of Trump’s legal team during his impeachment trial, will become a member of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees.
  
• White House aide and Trump confidante Hope Hicks will be a member of the Fulbright Scholarship Board.
  
• Former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, known for not holding a single press briefing during her entire 10-month tenure, was appointed to the Board of Directors of the National Board for Education Sciences.
  

Further reading: Trump administration appointed a donor to The Eric Trump Foundation to a $160,000/year position in the Small Business Administration

Congress

A day after Congress approved a nearly $900 billion stimulus bill, Trump suddenly threatened to veto it unless lawmakers increase the direct relief checks from the current $600 to $2,000. The video posted to Twitter “stunned” both White House and congressional aides.

“I am also asking Congress to immediately get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation, and to send me a suitable bill, or else the next administration will have to deliver a covid relief package, and maybe that administration will be me,” Trump said (clip).

• Trump effectively gave the Democrats a Christmas gift by allowing them to highlight that they support more money for Americans, unlike Republicans. Speaker Pelosi quickly responded to Trump’s video: Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the President wanted for direct checks. At last, the President has agreed to $2,000 — Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let’s do it!
  
• Important note: The “unnecessary items” Trump refers to are actually in the government funding bill that is tied to the Covid relief bill. The two were passed in the Senate with one vote. Similarly, vetoing the Covid stimulus bill would also veto the funding bill, leading to a government shut down on Monday.
  

Perhaps one of the “unnecessary items” in the stimulus bill is one sought by Trump himself: a tax break for corporate meal expenses. Trump has for months talked about securing the deduction, which critics say would largely benefit business executives who do not urgently need help at this time.

During negotiations, however, Democratic leaders agreed to the provision in exchange for Republicans agreeing to expand tax credits for low income families and the working poor in the final package… “Republicans are nickel-and-diming benefits for jobless workers, while at the same time pushing for tax breaks for three-martini power lunches. It’s unconscionable,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

Brian Murphy, former acting chief of the DHS’s intelligence office, testified before Congress that the administration told him to hold back on circulating assessments of the threat of Russian interference in the approaching Nov. 3 election in part because it “made the President look bad.” Murphy also said that the department leadership of urging him to “blame Far Left groups in an exaggerated fashion” for violence during summer protests in Portland, Oregon.
Members of the Congressional Oversight Commission have asked for the Treasury IG to investigate why Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin ended U.S. Federal Reserve emergency lending programs, citing “irregularities” in how Mnuchin came to his decision. Lawmakers including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have said that the actions amounted to a misreading of the law and were politically motivated to hamstring the incoming Biden administration.

• Commission member Bharat Ramamurti: “By the way, the Treasury Department is now declining to commit to release the legal memo justifying Sec. Mnuchin’s decision, even though he assured me at last week’s hearing that he would provide the Oversight Commission with a copy of it.”

Courts

On Friday, the Supreme Court punted a decision on Trump’s plan to exclude all unlawful immigrants from apportionment data for the 2020 census, writing the “judicial resolution of this dispute is premature,” and thus the coalition of state and local governments and NGOs did not have standing—the legal right to sue—in this case. The court ruled 6-3 on the matter, with Justices Stephen Breye, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissenting.

• Trump’s policy, if successful, would strip seats in the House of Representatives from diverse states with large immigrant communities.
  
• As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern pointed out: “Churches have standing to challenge inoperative COVID restrictions but states don't have standing to challenge blatantly illegal census manipulation that's poised to strip them of congressional representation.”
  

A Manhattan Supreme Court Judge ordered the Trump Organization and its attorney to turn over documents previously protected by mistaken attorney-client privilege to New York Attorney General Letitia James. James is looking into whether the Trump family and various corporate entities improperly inflated assets to obtain tax benefits.
Southern District of Ohio Judge Michael Watson struck down Ohio's policy prohibiting transgender residents from correcting the gender marker on their birth certificate. Watson, a George W. Bush appointee, provides transgender Ohioans the ability "to correct their birth certificates so that this necessary identity document is consistent with their gender identities."
A federal grand jury on Thursday indicted six men in the alleged conspiracy to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. The group “practiced assaulting a building in teams” and discussed destroying a highway bridge near Whitmer’s house to prevent law enforcement from responding. Now that they’ve been formally indicted, prosecution can proceed.
Further reading: “House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler intends to reissue a subpoena for former White House Counsel Don McGahn's testimony in 2021.” “In second loss for Kobach Monday, judge says he can’t get paid by We Build the Wall.”

Assassination attempt

Early last week, Bellingcat and CNN published evidence that an elite toxins team of Russia’s FSB trailed opposition politician Alexey Navalny for years before poisoning him in August. In his first comments on the investigation, Putin said that if the FSB wanted Navalny dead, they would have "finished it."
On Monday, Navalny posted a recording of a telephone call in which he duped FSB operative Konstantin Kudryavtsev into admitting his role in the poisoning. Posing as an official in Russia's National Security Council, Navalny got Kudryavtsev to detail the entire operation, including how the nerve agent was applied to a pair of Navalny's underwear.

Navalny asked: "What item of clothing was the emphasis on? What is the most risky piece of clothing?"
Kudryavtsev replied simply: "Underpants."
Navalny followed by asking exactly where the Novichok was applied -- the inside or outside seams.
"The insides, the crotch," replied Kudryavtsev.

Miscellaneous

Immigration: A draft Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s report revealed that nearly a dozen immigrants arrested by ICE were kept in solitary confinement for more than two months, including two people who were isolated for more than 300 days.
Immigration: A non-profit reports that more than 1,300 people have been raped, kidnapped, or otherwise assaulted since February 2019, when the Trump administration began requiring asylum-seekers to wait out their claims in Mexico.

• Related: “Immigrant Families Are Being Deported Without Their Asylum Claims Heard Lawfully, Advocates Say.”

Immigration: Last Tuesday, New York Gov. Cuomo signed a new law blocking federal immigration enforcement officials from making arrests at courthouses without a judicial warrant.
Environment: The Trump administration announced last week that the monarch butterfly will not be protected under the Endangered Species Act despite "a substantial probability" of population collapse in the next two decades. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the species is threatened enough to be included on the list but due to a lack of resources, protections may not be granted until 2024.

Between 1994 and 2016, the eastern monarch population plunged more than 80%...a total of less than 2,000 monarch butterflies were found this year in California, where there used to be millions — representing a stunning population drop of more than 99% since the 1980s… "The incredible migration of western monarchs is a unique yet fragile piece of North America's natural history, and it is on the brink of collapse," said Paige Howorth, director of invertebrate care and conservation at San Diego Zoo Global.

• HOW TO HELP: Plant milkweed. Don’t use pesticides. Check out these organizations: Save Our Monarchs and the National Wildlife Federation.

As the title states, we as detransitioners face a very peculiar problem. A very recurrent response to any of us saying that transition was not helpful in fixing the distress we felt/feel over some sexual characteristics, or saying that we have found alternative means of alleviating that distress, is this one:
"You were not really trans in the first place."
The purpose of this essay is to explain and showcase why such a statement hurts anyone who has ever suffered from any distress regarding their birth sex. It will also explain why that very sentence exposes a deep rooted problem within the word "transgender" in the first place. So let's get right into it.
First of all, let's quickly talk about why some transgender people feel the need to say this. Generally, the reason is not a concern for truth, it is a concern of personal safety. Transgender people are framed as this group of people who feel distress over their sexual characteristics (or "gender"), and whose only means of healing is to undergo a certain form of transition, whether it is physical or social. When we understand that concept, we can establish why it is vital to say we were never like them. Transgender people value this form of healing at all cost. They believe with all their heart that there is no other solution, and that any other suggestion is tantamount to suggesting they should suffer unnecessarily. There is a deep sense of self-preservation that is present within those words. Suggesting that transition does not alleviate this problem in some cases, and that there are parallel or alternative pathways to heal, is an existential threat. As such, an easy way to completely avoid the threat is to discard it: if detransitioners are not like them, then there is no need to put in question the validity of transition, and in turn, question themselves. It also implicitly might imply that transgender might only be a phase. After all, if detransitioners felt dysphoric during a portion of time, and felt after a while the need to detransition, and might very well heal and present a better life and mental state than they had during transition, surely it might suggest that these feelings might only be temporary. That is a catastrophic insinuation. Is this illumination transgender people go through about their "gender" temporary? Will they regret it one day? It's better not to think about it and further dissociate from these cases. Protection of one's feelings is a strong motivator.
Now, this obviously causes many problems.
The first problem is that this creates a pretty stigmatizing schism. Detransitioners are now framed as idiots, fools who believed they were transgender but mistakenly inflicted changes to their body that they will now regret, perhaps forever. Some changes like SRS do not have a reverse option. This fact alone might already cause enough distress for detransitioners who regret these surgeries. If we were to add this stigma on top, that many conservative-minded, gender critical, feminists and even transgender people perpetuate, this might prove to be harmful to our mental state, if not lethal. As such it is important to realize this schism is harmful to detransitioners.
Now one might not care about the mental state of detransitioners. After all, we are often believed to be "the enemy", able to join the numerous transgender-bashing groups there are out there any second (which is also profoundly harmful to someone's mental state). If that is the case, logic shall be our way to explain why it is not only erroneous to think of it that way, but also profoundly harmful to transgender people themselves.
It goes without saying that stating detransitioners were never trans is a complete lie. Detransitioners have a completely similar story to transgender people: At one point in their lives, they have felt distress over their body characteristics. That they felt something was wrong. That they felt they were born in the wrong body. That this was a mistake they could and should fix. They have felt the need to go to a clinic and be given the means to transition. They may very well have earned a gender dysphoria diagnosis as well. They may have very well enjoyed the feeling hormones and surgeries gave them, if only for a while. They might have felt this euphoric rush about finally finding a sense of self. For all intent and purposes, they were transgender at that given point in time. Arguing against this point is completely fallacious, but also profoundly dangerous for transgender people to raise.
Here is the new problem that is stated with that affirmation: if there are people out there who are not trans, yet have gone through a transition at some point in time and enjoyed it, and still ended up finding out that "they were not trans" and detransition, then who is actually transgender? Could we take any transgender person in the streets and say "that person is not actually trans and will regret transition given a few years"? Could we point at some transgender people and start affirming loud and clear that they are one of the fakers? That is what is implied when you state such a thing. Would transgender people really like a world where people doubt their existence constantly and constantly think they are going through a phase they will regret? The obvious answer might be "no, of course not", but weirdly enough, this is where the discussion gets even weirder. This is where transmedicalists come into the picture. These people are very well aware of the situation that is going on with asserting such a thing. Instead of perhaps looking at the issue objectively, they will do something else, which is to make sure to state that they, themselves, know what constitutes gender dysphoria and will make a conscious effort pointing at who they perceive to be the fakers, both as a protective measure, and a way to soothe the people that may start having the line of questioning I am currently presenting. "Only my experience is the valid one, all these people are not actually trans!" they will claim loud and clear. And for a while, this was the stance I was adopting. I stated numerous times that there were real and fake criterias of being transgender, and that I was part of the "trutrans group", as they call it, and to a transmedicalist reading this essay, they might start thinking there are no real problems stated here, in their view.
That is unfortunately very wrong. Unfortunate in the sense that if we lived in an utopia where we could say, for sure, who and who isn't transgender from biological factors, then all this mess would be fixed entirely. Alas we are very far from that reality. We will go into details as to why such a line of questioning is flawed, and profoundly creates a catastrophic end result for us all.
The transmed position will posit the thesis that the true cause of gender dysphoria is essentially biological and that there is a difference between transgender and non-transgender individuals. At the risk of sounding very transphobic, this needs to be stated, loud and clear, for the people among the transmedicalist position:

There is no science that backs any difference between transgender and non-transgender individuals.

I can already hear the objections raised at me, and perhaps the many labels I am already labelled with, but this needs to be a clear point of discussion so we can move on and reach the truth together. There is currently no paper that has found conclusive evidence of that claim. None whatsoever. Again, objections from the transmedicalist position will raise that there is evidence of a difference in the brain for transgender individuals, and will link some studies denoting such differences. Here is the counter to that line of defense.
Kreukels has redacted a paper titled neuroimaging studies in people with gender incongruence, which goes in details about the existing literature about these established differences. At a first glance, it may seem that this paper does prove the existence of a so called "transgender brain". After all, countless literature is cited here as proof that there seems to be differences. However, upon further reading, one thing becomes quite clear, and the paper states it itself.
​

It is clear that there is not a complete sex reversal in brain structures in people with gender incongruence. This latter point is also supported by the GM study in adolescents with GI, which shows that their volumes are, at a whole brain level, in line with their natal sex (Hoekzema et al., 2015). [...]
Reviewing the literature on the effects of cross-sex hormone treatment, the brain is astonishingly understudied compared to other body systems and organs (Gooren et al., 2015), despite the fact that the brain is abundant with androgen (Puy et al., 1995) and oestrogen (Osterlund et al., 2000) receptors. If the brain is already sensitive to differences in endogenous levels of sex hormones during the menstrual cycle (Protopopescu et al., 2008) and puberty (Peper et al., 2009), one could imagine that the administration of pharmacological doses of these hormones will have an effect as well. Indeed, there are studies that show important effects on the brain of cross-sex hormone treatment. After no more than seven months of cross-sex hormone treatment, we see decreased intracranial brain volume in MtF compared to controls (Hulshoff Pol et al., 2006), a generalized decrease in CTh and an expansion of the ventricles (Zubiaurre-Elorza et al., 2014). After androgenization, an increase in intracranial volume and hypothalamus volumes (Hulshoff Pol et al., 2006) and increases in CTh have been found in FtM (Zubiaurre-Elorza et al., 2014). Suppression of androgens and/or the deleterious effects of estradiol may induce the decreases in MtF, whereas increases in FtM may be the result of anabolic effects of testosterone (Guillamon, 2014, WPATH Bangkok; Guillamon et al., submitted; Zubiaurre-Elorza et al., 2014). These ideas are, at least with respect to estradiol, supported by the detrimental effects on the morphology of the brain of post-menopausal substitution therapy (Casanova et al., 2011; Resnick et al., 2009). [...]
Not all children with GI become adolescents or adults with GI, see Ristori & Steensma elsewhere in this special issue, and not all adults with GI have been children with GI. Some have an onset of GI feelings in early childhood, whereas others may have an onset of these feelings during or after puberty (Nieder et al., 2011)

​
Brain sex thus seems to be a very dubious theory, one that is still pushed to this day as constant proof and rationale for that position. It is a myth.
Worst of all, the validity of such a theory is irrelevant in regards to the ethical side of that position. Indeed, if it were to be found that there was a way of doing such a thing as state on a biological level that someone is indeed transgender, we are left with a disastrous loophole on our hands. If someone was to come forward as feeling distress over their sex or gender, and were found to not be biologically transgender, what should we do? Should we tell them that they are faking it? That they cannot receive any transgender care whatsoever, left on their own to solve their incongruous feelings? That could potentially cause a tragic situation where individuals are pushed to extremely dangerous mental states where they possibly could end their own life. After all, numerous studies presented by transgender activists seem to reflect that the availability of transition presents a significant decrease in suicide attempts. Do we really want to open that Pandora's Box? Do we want to expose all transgender people to the existential threat that is discovering that there is no scientific backing to how they feel? Thankfully, it is not all so grim as it seems. It is fairly obvious that transgender people present other vectors that lead them to pursue transition, whether it is psychological, social, sociological, and so on. One of the most prevalent and most brought up reason by some anti-transgender groups is sexual trauma. Papers seem to back up this theory, as for example stated in Prevalence of Childhood Trauma in a Clinical Population of Transsexual People . As such, the transmedicalist position purposefully puts a blind eye on all the other reasons of why someone may feel awful about the sex they were born as, and, as such, is profoundly illogical.
A lot of these vectors are talked about in this sub as well as other places of the internet, from transitioned and detransitioned individuals alike. Those are vital to explore, for everyone involved. Everyone benefits from this, yet it is seen as nonsense from the transmedicalist position, and transphobic according to the rest of the transgender population, to state there might be other vectors than an innate one.
This is where detransitioners come in, and why it is important to state that they were really trans. The fact of the matter is that detransitioners have addressed their dysphoric feelings by directly addressing the vectors that justified transition in their mind in the first place. That is apparent from the quasi-totality of detransitioner testimonies you will ever find. To take my own example, the vectors that justified a transition in my mind were, to name two, trauma (bullied a lot, one of them for being male, hence I developed a shame of being male) and rebellion (perceived that women had it better, frustration of being rejected by women, hence I developed a need to transition as rejection of the downsides of being a man). You will find many, many other kinds of vectors presented in these stories, vectors that are vital to understand and explore. Addressing these vectors is not a transphobic act. It actually is vital. This is what saved detransitioners from ever-chasing the chimera of solving all of their problems using hormones and surgeries, and forced them to do a deep dive in their own psyche, and in the end, save and heal themselves. It also does not mean that addressing those things would forcefully mean detransition for transgender people. It simply means that the dysphoria might have more than an innate vector. It is important for everyone involved to recognize that. Transgender people and detransitioned people lived through the exact same thing: they felt distress about their birth sex, and sought answers for their wounds. We are the same. There is absolutely no difference.
I have thus established the parallel between our experiences, which raises a final question in my mind: is the term transgender all that well chosen, in the end?
We could very well debate here the validity of gender, how it is impossible to change one's sex, and all these thoughts that may arise from such a question, but that is not the purpose of this essay. Rather, the question I am asking is this one. As I demonstrated in this essay, there is a very clear schism forming between transgender people and detransitioners, yet it is clear that they share way more in common than they differ. As such, would it really be judicious to separate us according to whether or not we are performing another gender, or under medical treatment in order to sexualize our bodies like the opposite sex, or at the very least desexualize our own? Is it really all that fair to talk about a cis/trans dichotomy, rather than those who feel or have ever felt distress over their birth sex, which happens to be a bigger portion of the population than those who are transgender?
Perhaps the key here would be to focus on the fact we all shared dysphoria over our birth sex. That way, we can properly start talking about the differing causes for such a phenomenon, and the various strategies that seem to work to take care of the problem, all in the name of better taking care of our mental troubles. I am still thinking about such terms but am not satisfied with the current ones I found or came up with. As such, feel free to suggest any of those in the comments.
That is all. Thank you very much for going through this very lengthy essay. May peace be with you.

Wilful killing Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; Taking of hostages. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives; Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury; The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives; Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons; Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; Declaring that no quarter will be given; Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party; Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war; Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault; Employing poison or poisoned weapons; Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices; Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions; Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123; Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions; Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations; Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law; Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions; Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities. In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause: Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; Taking of hostages; The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable. Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law; Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives; Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault; Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions; Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities; Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand; Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary; Declaring that no quarter will be given; Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons; Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict; Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.