Weekly Recap
Weekly Recap
USDA enforces gender ideology, debunking Lia Thomas, chestfeeding, 'What is a Woman?,' Yaniv convicted of assault, honey spirits, and more!
This One’s Free!
This week’s Weekly Recap newsletter is free! If you enjoy the content and would like access to future newsletters like this one, weekly community chat threads, and specially-curated weekly reading lists, please consider becoming a paying subscriber.
Your support is greatly appreciated, and allows me to dedicate my time and energy to exposing gender ideology and providing fact-based educational material on the biology of sex. Thank you!
This week’s Community Chat for paying subscribers is now active! Discuss the content of this newsletter, the Weekly Reading List, or anything you like! I’ll see you there.
Whitehouse Pushes Gender Ideology Through USDA
Last week it was revealed that the Biden administration will now require schools and other agencies that receive federal funding to allow students to self-identify into sex-based private areas such as restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities in order to obtain federal funding for school lunches. This is being implemented through Obama-era guidance on Title IX that extended prohibitions on sex-based discrimination to also include “gender identity.”
According to the announcement, “Under the leadership of the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA and FNS are issuing this interpretation to help ensure its programs are open, accessible and help promote food and nutrition security, regardless of demographics.” This is all part of a much broader plan for the top-down implementation of gender ideology throughout society.
Currently, the wording of Title IX makes it clear that its purpose “is to effectuate title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972…to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” However, the White House is now extending the wording of the 2019 Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court ruling, which stated that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity must also be considered discrimination “because of sex,” to Title IX.
Bostock v. Clayton County was a gift to gender activists that is greatly assisting them in implementing their radical ideology with little friction. There is, however, one legal avenue that can still be explored within Title IX to push back against this federal overreach. This is because Title IX prohibits three general types of discrimination—disparate treatment, disparate impact, and retaliation. While both males and females are treated equally under the Biden administration’s new requirement, it can likely be argued that males and females are impacted differently, as there are much more safety concerns for males entering female spaces than vice versa.
A Title IX Legal Manual by Justia says the following regarding disparate impact cases:
In a disparate impact case, the focus of the investigation concerns the consequences of the recipient's practices, rather than the recipient's intent.[50] To establish discrimination under a disparate impact scheme, the investigating agency must first ascertain whether the recipient utilized a facially neutral practice that had a disproportionate impact on the basis of sex.[51] In doing so, the investigating agency must do more than demonstrate that the practice or policy in question is a "bad idea."[52] The agency must show a causal connection between the facially neutral policy and the disproportionate and adverse impact on a protected group.[53]
This can be difficult given the need for a plaintiff to actually step forward, but pursuing this is perhaps the only legal pathway there is for keeping female spaces female-only.
Lia Thomas Speaks Out
Yesterday Good Morning America released a new video about Lia Thomas, the male athlete who recently became the NCAA Division I Women’s Swimming champion for the 400-yard freestyle. The video contains a new interview with Thomas about transitioning, competing in the women’s category, and the resulting controversy.
The program refers to Thomas several times as “the first known/openly transgender athlete to win a Division I national title.” Right away this misleadingly centers the whole discussion and surrounding controversy as having to do with Thomas being transgender instead of Thomas being biologically male.
This might seem like a distinction without much of a difference, but it is rhetorically very important. This is because if the outrage were about Thomas being transgender per se, then there should be similar controversy surrounding Isaac Henig, a male-identifying female athlete (i.e. transgender man) who continues to swim as a female. But since Henig is swimming in the appropriate sex category, and is not taking exogenous testosterone, there is simply no issue. By centering the debate around the fact that Thomas is transgender instead of biologically male, it paints those who oppose Thomas’ inclusion in female sports as “anti-trans” instead of “anti-males in female sports.”
Below are the questions Thomas was asked, Thomas’ answers, and my own rebuttals.
THOMAS: I knew there would be scrutiny against me if I competed as a woman, and I was prepared for that. But I also don’t need anybody’s permission to be myself and to do the sport that I love.
ME: Nobody is preventing Lia Thomas from being a transgender woman, but being a female is a matter of biology and “permission” doesn’t even enter into the picture. Being male or female is not a choice. And nobody wants to prevent Thomas from swimming altogether; Thomas is simply being asked to compete in the proper—male—sex category.
INTERVIEWER: There are some who look at the data and suggest that you’re enjoying a competitive advantage. What do you say to that?
THOMAS: There’s a lot of factors that go into a race and how well you do, and the biggest change for me is that I’m happy, and sophomore year, where I had my best times competing with the men, I was miserable. And so having that be lifted is incredibly relieving and allows me to put my all into training, into racing. Trans people don’t transition for athletics. We transition to be happy and authentic and our true selves. Transitioning to get an advantage is not something that ever factors into our decisions.
INTERVIEWER: You didn’t transition to win more medals?
THOMAS: No.
This is a revealing answer. Firstly, Thomas brings up the “many factors” argument, which claims that success in athletics can’t be boiled down to a single factor. This is a true statement, but highly misleading. While success can’t be reduced to one factor such as height, weight, strength, arm length, etc., there is one irreversible process that influences all of these factors—going through male puberty. And when we discuss fairness in sports, the question isn’t whether some athlete is better than the others, it’s whether they are better than others because of some additional factor not available to all other athletes.
This is why performance-enhancing drugs like steroids are prohibited in sports—it gives individual athletes an unfair advantage over other athletes who are not taking PEDs. Female sports is its own separate category specifically to control for the additional and irreversible advantage bestowed to males by going through male puberty. Lia Thomas cannot undo what male puberty has done, and what changes do occur by suppressing testosterone levels for years does very little to close the competitive gap between male and female athletes.
Thomas then suggests they should be allowed to compete in the female category because it makes them “happy,” whereas they were “miserable” competing as a man. But female sports do not exist to serve as group therapy for miserable males. This also completely disregards the happiness of every female athlete forced to compete against Thomas, such as Thomas’ 16 teammates who wrote letters about Thomas being a threat to women’s sports. Do their feelings not matter? It’s hard to avoid the sexism implied here—that the happiness of one male should be prioritized over the happiness of many females.
Lastly, Thomas says that gaining an advantage in sports was not a factor in their decision to transition. But that’s completely irrelevant to whether or not the unfair advantage exists and should be prevented from competing as a woman.
INTERVIEWER: The women who signed the letter anonymously said that they absolutely supported your right to transition, but they simply think it’s unfair for you to compete against cisgender women.
THOMAS: You can’t go halfway and be like “I support trans women and trans people, but only to a certain point.” Where if you support trans women as women, and they’ve met all the NCAA requirements, then I don’t know if you can really say something like that. Trans women are not a threat to women’s sports.
There are two things here worth mentioning. First, Thomas is of the belief that “women’s sports” refers to people who identify as women and not adult human females. Thomas is free to believe that, but then the question becomes why are sports segregated into men’s and women’s events in the first place?
There is simply no coherent reason why sports should be segregated by gender identity any more than they should be segregated by political or religious identities. The subjective brain states of “identifying as a woman” and “identifying as a man” have no causal relationship with athletic performance, and so cannot serve as a justification for separate sporting leagues and events. But biological sex has a very large causal relationship with athletic performance, and it is therefore obvious that “women’s” sports exists to ensure a protected category for adult human females to compete fairly with other adult human females.
The second thing worth mentioning is that Thomas actually brings up a pertinent point about having met “all the NCAA requirements” to compete in the women’s category. I maintain that we should not be directing our outrage at Lia Thomas for competing in the female category, but rather at the sporting organizations that have created loopholes for some males to unfairly compete against females.
INTERVIEWER: There is this concept of the legacy effects of testosterone, and that that can’t ever be zero. Should that eliminate or disqualify transgender women?
THOMAS: I’m not a medical expert, but there is a lot of variation among cis female athletes. There are cis women who are very tall and very muscular, and have more testosterone than another cis woman, and should that then also disqualify them?
This is another common argument, that since there is a lot of variation in traits among “cis” female athletes that is allowed and considered fair, that means trans women have no unique or categorical advantage. While it is true that there is plenty of trait variation among female athletes that influence performance, the point of sports isn’t to control for every source of variation within a category. In a real sense the point of sports is to highlight exceptional individuals with exceptional traits. While sports like boxing has weight categories to control for one major source of advantage, boxers within weight classes still differ in other relevant traits such as strength, speed, and wingspan. Certain amounts of individual variation within categories is acceptable, and even celebrated, in sports. But just as it would be absurd to allow a 250 lb boxer to simply “identify” their way into the featherweight class, it is equally absurd to allow a male to identify into the female class.
There is no rule in the universe saying that males and females must compete in separate leagues and events. But if we value females having the ability to compete fairly with other females, which controls for the full-body advantages males have as a result of male puberty, then we should exclude males from female sports. If women having the ability to compete fairly is of no value to you, that’s a belief you can certainly hold. It’s not one that I share, but you’re entitled to it. But if that’s your position then own it, and stop pretending to care about female sports while your every action is aimed at abolishing it.
San Francisco Mayor Pledges to ‘End Transgender Homelessness’
San Francisco Mayor London Breed announced on Tuesday that $6.5 million in her proposed budget will be go to a plan to “end transgender homelessness” in San Francisco by 2027.
While this might seem like a noble goal—since who could be against ending transgender homelessness?—providing aid based on immutable traits instead of individual need is morally wrong.
For example, suppose there are two homeless people, each experiencing equivalent amounts of pain and misery, but one is trans and the other is not. It would be wrong to decide who receives help based on this difference. And the same goes for any immutable trait, as they are not in and of themselves disadvantages. Differences in outcome measured at the group level cannot be used to determine whether any individual is disadvantaged.
Individuals are unique and their disadvantages cannot be distilled down to a single “identity” or immutable trait. This is why aid should be prioritized based on individual need. If one group is disproportionately in need, then a needs-based policy will already ensure that this group receives disproportionate aid. To do otherwise is totally immoral, and likely also unconstitutional.
Breed justifies the policy based on the fact that “Transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming San Franciscans are 18 times more likely to experience homelessness compared to the general population.” If this is true, which may be the case, then “transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming” people will already be 18 times more likely to receive assistance using a needs-based policy.
Lastly, it is completely bizarre that the policy applies to “transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming” people. So tomboys and effeminate males are also included? The only people excluded are therefore masculine men and feminine women? This is completely absurd.
Trans Woman ‘Breastfeeds’ Newborn
Last week, The Daily Mail reported the story of a trans woman, Jennifer Buckley, who has been attempting to “breastfeed” their infant to feel more feminine. Buckley said, “To know I could breastfeed my own child and have that experience, I wanted to be a part of that. I wanted to know what it was like to be a mum and breastfeed.”
Despite several doctors warning Buckley not to attempt breastfeeding given the “experimental” nature of the act for males, Buckley decided to pursue it anyway. In order to produce “milk,” Buckley took increased amounts of estrogen as well as domperidone, an anti-nausea medication that increases levels of prolactin, which can facilitate lactation.
While no studies have demonstrated any serious side effects of domperidone on breastfeeding infants, its use is still experimental, and current study sample sizes are very low. Because of this, the FDA was warned against its use for increasing milk production because of “safety concerns.” The FDA states:
The agency is concerned with the potential public health risks associated with domperidone. There have been several published reports and case studies of cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, and sudden death in patients receiving an intravenous form of domperidone that has been withdrawn from marketing in a number of countries. In several countries where the oral form of domperidone continues to be marketed, labels for the product contain specific warnings against use of domperidone by breastfeeding women and note that the drug is excreted in breast milk that could expose a breastfeeding infant to unknown risks. Because of the possibility of serious adverse effects, FDA recommends that breastfeeding women not use domperidone to increase milk production.
All of this was ignored because the potential health risks for the infant were apparently outweighed by the pleasant feeling of heightened femininity that Buckley experienced while “breastfeeding.”
Katy’s Shit Cartoon
This week I’ve decided to comment on this cartoon by Katy’s Shit Cartoons, claiming that trans people simply want “basic human rights.” Well, there is a question I have asked several times on Twitter which, despite having accumulated over 1200 retweets and hundreds of comments, has yet to be coherently answered:
What rights do trans people currently not have, but want, that don’t involve replacing biological sex with one’s subjective gender identity?
I have yet to receive a clear and coherent answer.
The most common response is something like “the right to not be harassed or treated poorly.” But nobody has the right to not be harassed or treated poorly. If what a person is experiencing crosses the threshold for criminal harassment, a trans person, like anyone else, can pursue legal action. But nobody has the right to not be treated poorly. Mean people exist, and we’ve all met them. Sure, trans people might receive more negative comments directed towards them, but this isn’t something you can prevent in a free society.
Rather than trying to dramatically change the world to prevent mean people from being able to say mean things to you, which would be impossible without incredibly draconian measures, the solution is to simply get tougher skin. Take Buck Angel, a transgender man, as an example. If you call Buck a “woman,” Buck will just laugh and get on with life. Buck doesn’t care what you think. Be like Buck.
If anyone is reading this who has a solid answer to the question I posed above, please comment below. I truly want to know the answer to this question, and if someone can articulate a valid response, I will tweet about the issue. But so long as “trans rights are human rights” remains merely a slogan void of anything actionable that won’t erode the rights of women’s sex-based rights, we should all continue to ignore it.
What Is a Woman?
Today Matt Walsh’s much-anticipated documentary “What is a Woman?” premiers on The Daily Wire’s website. In the documentary, Walsh asks the question that no adherent of gender ideology can answer—what is a woman?
Gender activists cannot answer this question because their ideology requires that the word woman refers to an identity that is entirely disconnected from one’s body. But they also cannot explicitly or openly state that these identities are based on an affinity to sex-related stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, because that would expose their ideology for the sexism that it is. Therefore, the only route available to them it to portray these identities as a kind of immaterial gendered soul.
But this means gender ideologues have fully left the realm of science, because such identities are both immaterial and unfalsifiable.
Jonathan Yaniv Found Guilty of Criminal Assault
Jonathan Yaniv, who is perhaps best known for attempting to trick women to wax his penis and filing lawsuits when they objected for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, has now been found guilty of criminal assault for attacking then Rebel News correspondent Keean Bexte on January 13, 2020.
Yaniv was on his way to court for two weapons charges for brandishing a stun gun during a livestream when he assaulted Bexte (video below).
While Yaniv admitted to having animosity for Bexte, he tried to argue that “he slipped and was merely trying to get Bexte’s phone to stop the recording.” As you can see in the video above, that is clearly not the case. On Twitter, Bexte reported that “the judge, while I was testifying, ordered me to refer to Yaniv as “Ms. Simpson.”
It is simply ludicrous that judges will require people to comply with gender ideology. Perhaps this could be protested as a form of lying under oath.
Despite the guilty conviction, it has recently been reported that “the ruling judge decided Yaniv will serve no time in prison. Instead, Yaniv will only have to attend counselling.”
Doctor Canned for Reckless Practices
The Telegraph has reported that Michael Webberley, a doctor who had “wrongly prescribed puberty blockers to a transgender nine-year-old child after a ten minute chat on Skype has been struck off.” In addition, his treatment of 24 other patients between February 2017 and June 2019 has been called “a catalogue of failings” according to a tribunal.
Seven of these patients related to GenderGP, a controversial private online clinic which a Telegraph investigation found was willing to prescribe sex change drugs and puberty blockers to children as young as 12 without asking them to talk to a doctor.
The tribunal found that Webberley had neither the qualifications nor training to be prescribing puberty blockers, and thus he had acted “outside the limits of his expertise.” In the instance where he prescribed sex-change treatments for a 9-year old after a 10-minute Skype call, there was “no physical examination” and “no evidential basis” beyond Webberley’s baseless assertion that the child would likely suffer mental health issues and self-harm if allowed to begin puberty.
The tribunal concluded that, “In the absence of any expression of regret and/or remorse, insight and/or remediation, Dr Webberley is liable in the future to put patients at risk, bring the medical profession into disrepute, breach fundamental tenets of the profession and act dishonestly.”
While this is great news, there are many more doctors like Webberley out there who need to be investigated and criminally prosecuted. I hope this case acts as a warning and a potential indication of what will happen to the many activist doctors currently harming children with inappropriate treatments.
Domeloz Honey Spirit, Oak Rested
This is an interesting spirit. While whiskey is made from distilling beer (fermented grains), brandy from distilling wine (fermented fruit), rum from distilling fermented sugar cane, and tequila/mezcal from distilling types of fermented agave nectar, there isn’t a widely agreed upon name for spirits made from distilling mead (fermented honey). That is largely because it is almost never done—except for the distillers at Domeloz.
At Domeloz, they have coined the term “somel” for for spirits made from distilled mead, which is a term derived from latin that means “only honey.” They have a few different types of somels on offer at Domeloz. There is an un-aged version, a version rested in ex-bourbon barrels (this review), a “Royal Reserve” that’s aged in oak barrels and bottled at cask strength, and an original cask strength batch aged for five months.
I am reviewing the oak-rested 90 proof version, which I bought in Wisconsin years ago while attending an academic conference.
Nose
Immediately you are hit with strong notes of honey and flowers, like honeysuckle. It is amazing how much of the honey comes across in the smell given that this is a pure spirit with no flavors or sugars added. Then there is vanilla, which likely comes from the oak. Candied fruit, similar to Red Vines candy jumps out. Lastly, there are solid notes of orange and lemon. It is very pleasant to nose!
Taste
While the taste is not as diverse as the nose, there is some overlap. There’s clear honey and floral notes, and also a little vanilla. The fruit has disappeared. Mostly it is just super sweet.
Overall
Overall this is highly enjoyable. While there isn’t a whole lot of complexity on either the nose or taste, it is undeniably delicious. The notes it does have are extremely pleasant. You can happily sip on this and enjoy every second. And most of all, it’s not like any other spirit, so the novelty alone is worth a bottle.
I am interested to know what more age will do to this product, and might have to splurge on one of their top shelf bottles in the future.
Reality’s Last Stand is a reader supported publication aimed at keeping you informed on the issues and news surrounding the troubling rise of sex denialism and gender ideology throughout society.
If you enjoy this content or find it valuable, please consider becoming a subscriber. You can gain full access to weekly newsletters, reading lists, and community discussion threads, and other subscribers-only articles by upgrading to a paid subscription below. These subscriptions are greatly appreciated and allow me to continue dedicating my time and energy to these very important issues. Thank you!
Re Title IX, "disparate impact" on women's sports should be relatively easy to establish. There needs to be a legal precedent where sex trumps gender, then it will be easier to push back in other areas. Women's sports seems to me to be the best arena for this. Letting men compete against women completely undermines the letter and spirit of Title IX.
The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) is fighting a court case in California to have SB132, which allows men in prison to declare themselves to be women and housed with women, unconstitutional. WoLF is the only organization I know of that is pursuing actual legal actions against gender ideology.
https://www.womensliberationfront.org/chandler-v-cdcr
The USDA holding child nutrition hostage really bothers me (I do some volunteering with child nutrition). Outside of ideology, I was really disappointed that the Biden Administration didn't ask Congress this year to continue serving all public school children a free lunch. Sometimes it is easier to reduce the stigma of free lunches by covering EVERYONE. Now that a recession/inflation might be coming in 22-23, I suspect that more families will need the free meals than will be admitting or know when the initial form for free lunches is asked for. It's hard to know exactly how much it would cost, but it would be in the neighborhood of 11 billion to serve all school kids a free lunch, which sounds like a lot, until you look at how eagerly money is being spent on Ukraine (which I definitely want to help, but if we are comparing school lunches to defence spending, it's not a lot). Now, to see the act of feeding children being treated like a political game and being held hostage to gender ideology is incredibly infuriating. I have always voted for the Democratic presidential candidate, and this is definitely how they are losing me, as an educated suburban white Mom who identifies as being a supporter of public schools.