Reading view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.

GOP lawmakers, Riley Gaines slam Democrats for voting against Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act

The U.S. House of Representatives passed its first bill of the 119th Congress on Tuesday, voting in favor of the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. 

Every Republican representative voted in favor of the bill, but only two Democrats, Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Vicente Gonzales, D-Texas, voted to pass it. The remaining 206 House Democrats all voted against. Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C., voted "present."

After the bill was passed, Republican congressional representatives and women's rights advocates condemned the Democrats who voted against it in a press conference on Capitol Hill. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said it was "shameful" that only two Democrats voted to pass the bill. 

"We had two Democrats join us, but it's shameful, there should be many, many more. In fact, I argue that every member of this body voted for common sense and to protect women. But for some reason, for politics I guess, they chose not to," Johnson said. 

"The American people sent a clear message in November, they want us to return to common sense, but it seems that some of our friends in the other party are ignoring that plea."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

Former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines, a prominent advocate for women athletes' rights who leads a lawsuit against the NCAA for its stance in allowing trans athletes to compete as women, also lambasted the 206 Democrats who voted against the bill. 

Gaines took aim at the Democrats who argued against the new law on the basis that it would result in young girls being examined for sports eligibility. 

"We heard of things like genital exams, we heard that girls would be asked to show what's in their underwear, we heard that they would have to show internal and external anatomy, inspections, Taliban-like enforcers, hire predators to peak at enforcers on and on and on, weird fearmongering about predators, but that's what Democrats do best," Gaines said. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., sent a post on Bluesky criticizing the legislation on Tuesday, making unsubstantiated claims that the law would "unleash horrific child predators on girls and young women." 

Jeffries' office has not offered a substantial explanation as to how the law would do this. When asked for comment by Fox News Digital, a spokesperson only said, "The post speaks for itself."

Gaines also criticized those who said the bill was "a waste of time."-

"I heard that this bill is a waste of time, and let me tell you the message I received when I heard that, it's that I am a waste of time. Girls around the country, just like me, are a waste of time. Your daughters are a waste of time to all House Democrats except for two." 

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., who re-introduced the bill in the House after a failed attempt to pass it in 2023, pointed out Democrats' track record of enabling and celebrating trans inclusion in women's sports. 

"The Democrats have, for years, tried to allow biological [men] to compete in our nation's women's collegiate activities," Steube said. 

"It's absolutely absurd that we actually have to pass a bill that says only women can be in women's sports!" 

The Biden administration, alongside other Democrats, has taken sweeping actions over the last four years to enable trans athletes in women's and girls' sports. 

On Jan. 20, 2021, just hours after President Biden assumed office, he issued an executive order on "Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation." 

This order included a section that read, "Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports." 

HOW TRANSGENDERISM IN SPORTS SHIFTED THE 2024 ELECTION AND IGNITED A NATIONAL COUNTERCULTURE

Biden issued a sweeping rule that clarified that Title IX’s ban on "sex" discrimination in schools covers discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation and "pregnancy or related conditions," in April. The administration insisted the regulation does not address athletic eligibility. However, multiple experts presented evidence to Fox News Digital in June that it would ultimately put more biological men in women's sports. 

Democrats have proposed other federal legislation that would allow for more transgender inclusion in women's sports. These include the Equality Act, which was proposed in 2019 and has seen revisions that "would force public schools to allow biologically male athletes who identify as transgender on girls’ sports teams."

In March 2023, Democrats advocated for a transgender bill of rights, proposing a resolution "recognizing that it is the duty of the Federal Government to develop and implement a Transgender Bill of Rights." The resolution specifically called for federal law to ensure that biological men can "participate in sports on teams and in programs that best align with their gender identity; [and] use school facilities that best align with their gender identity."

However, those stances appeared to backfire in the November election, as Trump and Republicans pounded Democratic opponents with TV advertisements about their support for trans inclusion. 

national exit poll conducted by the Concerned Women for America (CW) legislative action committee found that 70% of moderate voters saw the issue of "Donald Trump’s opposition to transgender boys and men playing girls' and women’s sports and of transgender boys and men using girls' and women’s bathrooms" as important to them. And 6% said it was the most important issue of all, while 44% said it was "very important."

"This was an opportunity to turn a new leaf, leave party politics behind to finally prioritize people over Washington politics. But unfortunately, it remained nearly a complete party vote, with only two Democrats willing to affirm and protect Title IX’s protections," CWA legislative strategist Macy Petty told Fox News Digital. 

"This vote was not about some complicated policy issue, but a self-evident truth that civilization has recognized since Creation. When abandoned, as we’ve witnessed, women and girls face devastating consequences that require moral clarity to correct. And that’s been harder and harder to come by here in Washington."

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Parallels is testing x86 emulation on Apple silicon Macs

Picture of an M4 MacBook Pro.
Photo by Antonio G. Di Benedetto / The Verge

Parallels has added support for x86 emulation in Parallels Desktop 20.2, product manager Mikhail Ushakov wrote in a blog post last week. The “early technology preview” will let you emulate Intel-based hardware on an M1-or-greater Mac, a first for Parallels since Apple’s Arm transition in 2020 — but don’t expect stellar performance.

Parallels says users will be able to:

Run existing x86_64 Windows 10, Windows 11*, Windows Server 2019/2022, and some Linux distributives with UEFI BIOS via Parallels Emulator.

Create new Windows 10 21H2 and Windows Server 2022 virtual machines.

Screenshot of a Windows virtual machine running in macOS. Image: Parallels

However, performance will be “really slow,” with up to seven-minute boot times, Ushakov says. Other limitations include no external USB device support, Windows 11 24H2 isn’t supported, and you can only emulate 64-bit operating systems, though Ushakov says you can run 32-bit apps.

He writes that the option to start one of these VMs is hidden for now “to avoid false expectations” from those who don’t need x86 emulation.

Parallels has a longer list of caveats in a separate article.

Screenshot showing Microsoft Powerpoint running on a Windows virtual machine. A right-click menu is visible, with “Writing Tools (Mac)” highlighted at the bottom. Image: Parallels
Parallels now puts Apple Intelligence Writing Tools in the Windows context menu.

Version 20.2 brings some other changes, including support for automatic time and time zone syncing in macOS virtual machines on Apple silicon. It also adds Apple’s AI-powered Writing Tools to the Windows right-click menu in Word, Powerpoint, and the classic version of Outlook. Before, you had to use a keyboard shortcut or the macOS menu bar’s Edit menu.

Sonos’ chief product officer is leaving the company

Vector illustration of the Sonos logo.
Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge

A day after Sonos announced a CEO transition, the company is making more moves. Chief product officer Maxime Bouvat-Merlin will also be leaving his position. Some employees have told me that Bouvat-Merlin shares a significant share of blame for the brand damage that Sonos has endured over the last year after deciding to release an overhauled mobile app well before it was ready for customers.

In an email to staff, interim CEO Tom Conrad — who himself has plenty of product experience — said the CPO position is now “redundant” and that Bouvat-Merlin’s job is being eliminated. “I know this is a lot of change to absorb in two days and I want to thank you for being resilient,” Conrad wrote.

“Max’s tenure represents an iconic era for Sonos products, including the award-winning Sonos One, Beam, Move, Ace, Arc, and Arc Ultra, establishing Sonos as the world leader in home theater audio and setting the foundation for our next chapter,” Conrad’s email reads.

Bouvat-Merlin will serve as an adviser to Conrad before fully exiting the company. These major changes within Sonos’ ranks suggest that the company is taking its effort to win back trust and right the wrongs of its previous leadership quite seriously.

Conrad’s full email follows below:

Team,

Earlier this morning, I committed to you to share the truth. In that spirit, I want to share some changes I am making to simplify our leadership structure and flatten our Product organization.

With my stepping in as CEO, the Board, Max, and I have agreed that my background makes the Chief Product Officer role redundant. Therefore, Max’s role is being eliminated and the Product organization will report directly to me. I’ve asked Max to advise me over the next period to ensure a smooth transition and I am grateful that he’s agreed to do that.

Max’s tenure represents an iconic era for Sonos products, including the award-winning Sonos One, Beam, Move, Ace, Arc and Arc Ultra, establishing Sonos as the world leader in home theater audio and setting the foundation for our next chapter. These achievements are a testament to the talent, passion, and creativity that define our Product team, and Max has been a leading part of all of that.

I shared this news openly with the Sonos leaders yesterday with the intention that these leaders would share the update as needed with their teams. Unfortunately this news quickly made its way outside the organization. While this is frustrating for all of us, I will not let the possibility of a leak change our ability to communicate openly with one another. So I’m going to keep telling you the truth.

I know this is a lot of change to absorb in two days and I want to thank you for your resilience, continued commitment to Sonos and support of each other during this time.

Tom

Netflix’s new animated Witcher spinoff movie sets sail this February

A bard standing and a warrior in armor standing next to each other and looking down out of a broken window.
Netflix

Though the fourth season of Netflix’s live-action Witcher series still doesn’t have a concrete release date, Netflix has finally announced when we’ll see yet another animated take on Geralt of Rivia.

Originally, Netflix intended for The Witcher: Sirens of the Deep to debut some time late last year, but the steamer revealed today that the movie is now set to premiere on February 11th. Based on Andrzej Sapkowski’s short story “A Little Sacrifice” from Sword of Destiny, Sirens of the Deep tells the tale of how Geralt of Rivia (Doug Cockle) and Jaskier (Joey Batey) get caught up in an age-old conflict between humans and merpeople.

In a new trailer for the movie, things seem simple enough to Geralt as he’s first hired to put his special skills to good use. It makes sense that humans would want a witcher’s help to deal with a deadly series of sea monster attacks. The gig’s also easy money for Geralt and a solid way to keep his mind off Yennefer of Vengerberg (Anya Chalotra). There’s something nefarious at the root of the interspecies war, though, and by the time Geralt realizes he might have gotten things wrong, he can only do but so much to stop the bloodshed.

Compared to the live-action series, Sirens of the Deep looks like it’s going for a more spectacular (in the sense that the action’s big) depiction of Geralt’s adventures. And while it might not connect directly to the events of Netflix’s last animated Witcher movie or the live-action Witcher’s fourth season, it should make the wait a little more bearable.

Your UGGs may not be the shoes you think they are

Influencer Anna Winter wears UGG shoes in Berlin, Germany.
An influencer wears UGG shoes in Berlin.

Jeremy Moeller/Getty Images

  • People are realizing that the UGG shoes they've worn for decades may be different than they thought.
  • That's because they purchased American-made UGGs — not shoes from Australian brand UGG Since 1974.
  • The brands are separate companies with little in common besides their nearly identical boots.

You probably have a pair of UGG boots in your closet.

And just as likely, they're probably not the Australian-made shoes you think they are.

Leather, fur-lined boots have a history that goes back centuries, but the kind we wear today got their start in Australian surfing culture. Dubbed "uggs," an Australian slang term, the shoes were first regularly worn by surfers to keep their feet warm around the '50s.

Of course, when you hear the term in the US, you likely think of the trendy, brand-name footwear ideal for winter.

The UGG company's brown boots first became a sensation in the early 2000s, with everyone from suburban moms to celebrities like Beyoncé touting their Australian-made boots with authentic sheepskin fabrics and cloud-like linings.

And since then, various UGG styles have made a comeback thanks to Gen Z fashion fans.

However, many shoppers are now discovering that the shoes they've been wearing for decades aren't actually made in Australia. They're not created by the original ugg brand unless they were purchased from UGG Since 1974, an Australia-based company that handcrafts its products and has been around a few years longer than UGG.

An UGG store sign in London.
The UGG brand that we all know is actually American, not Australian.

Mike Kemp/Getty Images

UGG vs. UGG Since 1974

After sheepskin boots first became popular in the '50s and '60s, Australian couple Arthur Springthorpe and Faye Springthorpe took the shoes to another level in the '70s, according to a blog post from UGG Since 1974.

"Arthur and Faye drew on Arthur's years of experience as a wool classer in the shearing sheds of New South Wales to craft sheepskin moccasins and UGG boots, one pair at a time in our workshop, all those years ago," the brand's website says.

Though they didn't invent the term "ugg," the Springthorpes saw its potential as a business moniker and created a stable, family-run business in Australia.

And today, the brand is still going strong. You can buy its shoes at one store in Australia and around the world via its online shop.

@uggsince1974 Fun fact, we only have 1 store in the entire world where we hand make our true Aussie ugg boots for! 🫶🏽 🦘 #uggsince1974 #uggboots #australianmade #winterfashion #autumnfashion #springfashion #australia ♬ original sound - UGG Since 1974

But as UGG Since 1974 was rising to success in Australia, a competitor named UGG rose alongside them in the US.

Brian Smith, an Australian surfer and entrepreneur, founded UGG in 1978 after relocating to California.

In a 2014 interview with Forbes, Smith explained that he was looking to start a business while in school to be an accountant and found inspiration in sheepskin boots when he saw an advertisement for them in a friend's surfing magazine.

"Importing six pairs of boots as samples, I registered UGG as the trademark and settled down to be an instant millionaire," Smith told Forbes. "What I didn't know was that Americans didn't understand sheepskin like Aussies do."

Despite initial slow sales and business troubles, as Smith told the publication, the shoes eventually caught on with US surfers and professional athletes.

The US Olympic team, for example, wore UGG boots during the 1994 Winter Games in Lillehammer, Norway.

The US Olympic team wears UGG shoes in Lillehammer, Norway, on February 12, 1994.
The US Olympic team wears UGG shoes in Lillehammer, Norway, on February 12, 1994.

David Madison/Getty Images

And later, celebrities grew to love the US-based UGG brand.

Oprah first featured UGG boots in her 2003 Favorite Things episode, and the shoes became a staple wardrobe piece for stars like Paris Hilton, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kate Moss.

Kate Moss wears UGG shoes in London, England, on December 16, 2003.
Kate Moss wears UGG shoes in London on December 16, 2003.

Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images

Deckers Brands, which owns popular footwear companies including Hoka, Teva, and Sanuk, then purchased the UGG brand in 1995.

Is there a difference? Shoppers say yes.

The fact that two major UGG brands exist is no secret.

Both companies have been around for decades, and the Australian version regularly states online that it has "no connection whatsoever, past or present, to the US company known as UGG."

However, many consumers have been entirely unaware of the similar yet different brands, which has led to a lot of confusion.

In December 2023, content creator Eliana Shiloh said in a TikTok video that she was "shook" to discover there was even a difference between UGG and UGG Since 1974 and that Deckers Brands mass-produces its UGG products with materials that aren't always from Australia. Deckers Brands did not respond to a request for comment.

In her video, which now has 2.3 million views, Shiloh said she thought the quality of the shoes she'd purchased from the brand had decreased over the years, which led her to question if she'd had UGG Since 1974 shoes as a child but bought American-made UGG boots as an adult.

@elshiloh this is literally crazy i cant believe it #ugg #uggseason #uggsince1974 ♬ original sound - elshiloh

As UGG Since 1974 explained in a TikTok video two days later, that's likely not the case.

"If you purchased your UGGs in the early 2000s in the USA or from the USA website, you've likely never owned a pair of our UGG Since 1974 boots," the video's narrator says. "Our UGG boots can only be purchased from one store in Australia and online through uggsince1974.com.au."

Shiloh told Business Insider that she came to the same conclusion after doing more research following her TikTok video. From now on, she plans to purchase shoes from UGG Since 1974 instead of UGG.

@uggsince1974 Replying to @They_are_covert Different UGG companies? More to come. #uggsince1974 ♬ GOOD VIBES - Ellen Once Again

So, how did shoppers like Shiloh get so confused? Is there an UGG Mandela effect?

In a way, yes. UGG was once named UGG Australia, leading shoppers to believe they were purchasing shoes made in Australia with Australian materials.

The brand changed its name to UGG in 2016 when Australian ugg makers complained to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that the American company's branding was misleading, The Sydney Morning Herald reported.

If you bought UGGs in the early 2000s, you were likely buying UGG Australia, which is now known simply as UGG.

Stylist Sonia Lyson wears UGG shoes in in Berlin, Germany.
A pair of US-brand UGG shoes.

Jeremy Moeller/Getty Images

As for how the brands differ, that all comes down to how (and where) the shoes are made.

UGG Since 1974 says on its website that it handcrafts its shoes, and the brand wrote in a since-deleted blog post that its competitor UGG mass-produces its products "in countries such as China, Vietnam, the Philippines and other parts of Asia."

"We strictly use Australian and New Zealand sheepskin, with all of our UGG boots being handcrafted from premium A-Grade Australian or New Zealand sheepskin," UGG Since 1974 said in its post.

Meanwhile, UGG details the materials used in the product descriptions of each of its items.

One of UGG's most classic designs, for example, utilizes sheepskin and "real fur from sheep or lamb," according to the UGG website. The site says that fur "may be sourced from Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, or the United States" and that it is "artificially dyed and treated." Other UGG products incorporate materials such as wool and lyocell, a fabric made from trees.

Representatives for UGG Since 1974 did not respond to a request for comment. When contacted by BI for this story, UGG declined to comment on the debate and feedback surrounding its products.

Sheepskin boots and trademark disputes

UGG, UGG Since 1974, and other ugg manufacturers don't necessarily co-exist peacefully.

In May 2021, a federal appeals court rejected a case from shoemaker Eddie Oygur, who sells ugg-style shoes through his brand Australian Leather, to remove UGG's American trademark.

Oygur told The New York Times in 2021 that he felt Australia should have sole ownership of the term.

"The trademark should never have been given in the first place to the US," he told the publication.

UGG Since 1974 said in its deleted blog post that this dispute — namely the the lack of rights for Australian brands — prevents them and other brands from widely selling ugg products in other countries.

The company also said it was then "working to preserve" the ugg term for Australian businesses to use in and outside the country.

However, as of January, UGG Since 1974 said on TikTok that it had been sued by Deckers and would be rebranding to Since 74 overseas. In Australia and New Zealand, the brand says it will remain as UGG Since 1974.

So maybe you own UGGs, UGG Since 1974 boots, or another dupe entirely.

But whatever you've got on your feet, the shoes likely have a deep, complicated history that's enough to make you say "ugh."

Read the original article on Business Insider

❌