I’m confused about the classification of the Epoch Times article ‘Supreme Court Won’t Disturb Ruling Recognizing Gender Dysphoria Under Disability Law’ How is that a good thing? Shouldn’t that be under the other category?
A few other things about gender dysphoria, gender ID, and the ADA.
1. Congress very explicitly stated in the ADA’s code (which the article quotes) that the ADA COULD NOT COVER GID ISSUES. Nevertheless, a federal judge ruled that it did when a male sued the sporting goods store where he worked that they had to let him use the wrong restroom because the ADA supposedly covered him. This is one example of judges abusing their power to rewrite legislation to suit them.
2. Supposing the trans identified are covered by the ADA, shouldn’t that make them ineligible to serve in the military? Yet the armed forces has had substantial training to force troops to accommodate the trans identified in their ranks.
One series of power point slides described a scenario whereby a male with his genitals intact must still be admitted to the women’s barracks with its restrooms and showers. (And the military wonders why it has lately fallen short of its recruitment goals, consistently.)
Insanity, people, it’s at large, running amok. It will not only wreck our legal system but our civil order as well. Order is founded upon the fact-world of our common experience, and permitting people to self-id as what they absolutely are not is the exact opposite of that.
Plus, "Sophie" Steven Cook, recommending spouses who tell the truth be prosecuted for domestic abuse! He's profiled on several platforms in the UK, told his 11 and 15 year old children about his "change" and they, (son and daughter) according to him, went through "all 7 stages of grief" in a half hour! He's the Diversity & Inclusion point person for The Crown Prosecution Service, last year hired, controversially, since he publicly defames women with the label, "TERF" and promotes "WOMXN" for naming the female category. It gets better and better, because now he tells us the only difference between males and females is that females "have menstruation and give birth." For more:
First, The article by Gladden Pappin about incentivizing educated women to have children and “form families” was quite … odd, which I’ll get to after a few minor fact checks.
1. First, he clearly is not aware that the vast majority of “young US women” don’t have educational debt - 75% or so. The majority of student debt is held by people in their 40’s,hardly an age where I can imagine women are ready to take on multiple pregnancies. A second large section is in their 30’s. If they’re going to have babies they probably already have.
2. Second, The policies Orbán Viktor (Hungarian name order) in Hungary aren’t organized around debt, they’re organized around taxation. A women who has 4 or more children will pay no income tax for life.
3. Third, family formation frequently involves… men. That seems to have eluded him in the discussion . Where are they in this baby-making engine? Why shouldn’t their educational debt also be relieved? We all know that when it comes to successfully creating families, two-parent heterosexual households is a model that’s historically hard to beat. A high-debt dad and a zero-debt mom still seems at odds with his model.
4. Fourth, is the Republican Party really ready for subsidized baby creation? I mean they still rattle on about “Welfare Queens”, and the myth of women having babies for welfare payments.
5. Fifth - when it comes to economics and family formation, isn’t the problem more about the economic struggles of people who don’t have educational debt? 75% or more of young people? Childcare, housing, healthcare - not educational debt?
6. Sixth and last - high fertility is inversely proportional to GDP as well as economic and political stability - and to years of female education. Afghanistan, Niger, Somalia, Iraq, Congo - to name a few with relatively high fertility - are not exactly fabulous economically, or for women. It’s not related to financial support for families. The countries with the best financial support, the most possible reduction of financial hardship for family formation, have the lowest fertility. Even the basis for the argument - promoting family formation, is not supported by evidence.
As a gay man, I think it’s amazing and wonderful that straight people have babies and raise families often in marriage, a centuries old (millennia old) pre-religious institution intended in no small part to create households for rearing children. I can’t even remotely contemplate how that works in practice though I’ve obviously been part of it myself as a child, and observed it for many decades.
We should collectively support families - it’s an emotional, economic, and pure time and logistics struggle, to bring life into this world - which has benefits for everyone. I believe that collective support should go far beyond public school, but also provide for prenatal-postnatal healthcare, nutrition, housing, clothing, education, security and time back to be parents. That means publicly underwritten support for all of the above, irrespective of educational attainment.
Now, why the article is odd to me. It feels like financially-engineered coercion of better-educated women to have babies, not families, and ignoring the needs of most actual families involved in raising children. Is it bad? I think selecting which women should should be enticed to having babies should not be a function of government, and is a kind of economic eugenics. Those incentives have not historically gone well, and supporters have other motivations. Revanchist attempts at engineering populations aren’t “Reality”..
Is this the forum for that conversation?
Second, I continue to be puzzled by continued and increasing reliance on Epoch Times - today is a bonanza, what 5 items, the plurality?
While they are good at some sensational reporting interspersed with repeating ordinary news items, they are very good at embedding bad crackpot science and conspiracy theories (Qanon? “The real story of January 6th”) in their never-ending streams. They are the mirror of Huffington Post, also home to breathless sensational reporting, crackpot science and conspiracy theories.
I take this forum to be a kind of science writing.
The problems with children, science, government and “gender” are quite real, and deserve attention. Conflating science reporting with sensationalized trans stories, vaccine conspiracies, crackpot Covid ideas, as well as revanchist ideas on homosexuality and gay marriage (just to start) makes the entire discussion look like crackpottery. If you’ve not done cursory checks on the epoch times - I don’t even want to bother with the other tendrils of that media network - here’s a starting point.
HPV - the vaccine which prevents cervical, anal, and throat cancers induced by HPV virus
I’m confused about the classification of the Epoch Times article ‘Supreme Court Won’t Disturb Ruling Recognizing Gender Dysphoria Under Disability Law’ How is that a good thing? Shouldn’t that be under the other category?
A few other things about gender dysphoria, gender ID, and the ADA.
1. Congress very explicitly stated in the ADA’s code (which the article quotes) that the ADA COULD NOT COVER GID ISSUES. Nevertheless, a federal judge ruled that it did when a male sued the sporting goods store where he worked that they had to let him use the wrong restroom because the ADA supposedly covered him. This is one example of judges abusing their power to rewrite legislation to suit them.
2. Supposing the trans identified are covered by the ADA, shouldn’t that make them ineligible to serve in the military? Yet the armed forces has had substantial training to force troops to accommodate the trans identified in their ranks.
One series of power point slides described a scenario whereby a male with his genitals intact must still be admitted to the women’s barracks with its restrooms and showers. (And the military wonders why it has lately fallen short of its recruitment goals, consistently.)
Insanity, people, it’s at large, running amok. It will not only wreck our legal system but our civil order as well. Order is founded upon the fact-world of our common experience, and permitting people to self-id as what they absolutely are not is the exact opposite of that.
Plus, "Sophie" Steven Cook, recommending spouses who tell the truth be prosecuted for domestic abuse! He's profiled on several platforms in the UK, told his 11 and 15 year old children about his "change" and they, (son and daughter) according to him, went through "all 7 stages of grief" in a half hour! He's the Diversity & Inclusion point person for The Crown Prosecution Service, last year hired, controversially, since he publicly defames women with the label, "TERF" and promotes "WOMXN" for naming the female category. It gets better and better, because now he tells us the only difference between males and females is that females "have menstruation and give birth." For more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgI0NJMnTbg
Ideological Capture
First, The article by Gladden Pappin about incentivizing educated women to have children and “form families” was quite … odd, which I’ll get to after a few minor fact checks.
1. First, he clearly is not aware that the vast majority of “young US women” don’t have educational debt - 75% or so. The majority of student debt is held by people in their 40’s,hardly an age where I can imagine women are ready to take on multiple pregnancies. A second large section is in their 30’s. If they’re going to have babies they probably already have.
2. Second, The policies Orbán Viktor (Hungarian name order) in Hungary aren’t organized around debt, they’re organized around taxation. A women who has 4 or more children will pay no income tax for life.
3. Third, family formation frequently involves… men. That seems to have eluded him in the discussion . Where are they in this baby-making engine? Why shouldn’t their educational debt also be relieved? We all know that when it comes to successfully creating families, two-parent heterosexual households is a model that’s historically hard to beat. A high-debt dad and a zero-debt mom still seems at odds with his model.
4. Fourth, is the Republican Party really ready for subsidized baby creation? I mean they still rattle on about “Welfare Queens”, and the myth of women having babies for welfare payments.
5. Fifth - when it comes to economics and family formation, isn’t the problem more about the economic struggles of people who don’t have educational debt? 75% or more of young people? Childcare, housing, healthcare - not educational debt?
6. Sixth and last - high fertility is inversely proportional to GDP as well as economic and political stability - and to years of female education. Afghanistan, Niger, Somalia, Iraq, Congo - to name a few with relatively high fertility - are not exactly fabulous economically, or for women. It’s not related to financial support for families. The countries with the best financial support, the most possible reduction of financial hardship for family formation, have the lowest fertility. Even the basis for the argument - promoting family formation, is not supported by evidence.
As a gay man, I think it’s amazing and wonderful that straight people have babies and raise families often in marriage, a centuries old (millennia old) pre-religious institution intended in no small part to create households for rearing children. I can’t even remotely contemplate how that works in practice though I’ve obviously been part of it myself as a child, and observed it for many decades.
We should collectively support families - it’s an emotional, economic, and pure time and logistics struggle, to bring life into this world - which has benefits for everyone. I believe that collective support should go far beyond public school, but also provide for prenatal-postnatal healthcare, nutrition, housing, clothing, education, security and time back to be parents. That means publicly underwritten support for all of the above, irrespective of educational attainment.
Now, why the article is odd to me. It feels like financially-engineered coercion of better-educated women to have babies, not families, and ignoring the needs of most actual families involved in raising children. Is it bad? I think selecting which women should should be enticed to having babies should not be a function of government, and is a kind of economic eugenics. Those incentives have not historically gone well, and supporters have other motivations. Revanchist attempts at engineering populations aren’t “Reality”..
Is this the forum for that conversation?
Second, I continue to be puzzled by continued and increasing reliance on Epoch Times - today is a bonanza, what 5 items, the plurality?
While they are good at some sensational reporting interspersed with repeating ordinary news items, they are very good at embedding bad crackpot science and conspiracy theories (Qanon? “The real story of January 6th”) in their never-ending streams. They are the mirror of Huffington Post, also home to breathless sensational reporting, crackpot science and conspiracy theories.
I take this forum to be a kind of science writing.
The problems with children, science, government and “gender” are quite real, and deserve attention. Conflating science reporting with sensationalized trans stories, vaccine conspiracies, crackpot Covid ideas, as well as revanchist ideas on homosexuality and gay marriage (just to start) makes the entire discussion look like crackpottery. If you’ve not done cursory checks on the epoch times - I don’t even want to bother with the other tendrils of that media network - here’s a starting point.
HPV - the vaccine which prevents cervical, anal, and throat cancers induced by HPV virus
https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-hpv-vaccine
COVID - part of the endless stream of nonsense
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-vaccine-injuries
Kennedy - deluxe, brand-name nonsense
https://www.theepochtimes.com/author-robert-f-kennedy-jr
Thimoseral - back to the autism crackpottery
https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-thimerosal
Hydroxychloroquine - another conspiracy
https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-hydroxychloroquine
Ivermectin - beyond the pale reporting
https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-ivermectin
https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-ivermectin-covid
Homosexuality - where do I begin?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-homosexuality
Gay Marriage - and old time religion
https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-same-sex-marriage
Colin if you want to spread anti-science, it’s hard to find a more reliable source of claptrap
They are so incredibly prodigious in their claptrap output it is far easier to ignore all that they say and move on.
There are so many articles involving them on Snopes it’s hilarious:
https://www.snopes.com/search/Epoch%20times/
Even trivial stuff is lies and misrepresentation.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elton-john-american-concerts/
https://archive.ph/pFnYE
Debunked
https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/the-epoch-times/
Is it worth it?