Jun 1, 2022·edited Jun 1, 2022Liked by Colin Wright
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.
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.
"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." This argument should work even better in other areas where self-ID is being pushed, e.g., prisons and rape crisis centers, because there's no gatekeeping whatsoever, unlike in the NCAA.
"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." If I ever have to testify in court, I hope there are trans identities involved so I can try this.
The SF mayor's concern for unhoused "gender nonconforming" people would be hilarious if she weren't so convinced that she is being a social justice hero.
I think you dimiss the standard of not being treated poorly too quickly. There has a lot of focus today on preventing "hostile environments" at work and at school. Excellent actors, professors, and businessman have been defenestrated in pursuit of this standard.
As somebody who was badly bullied in grammar school, and as somebody who actually quit a job to get away for a scary ahole -- A continuously angry coworker who I thought was fully capable of going postal -- I think a non hostile environment is a reasonable goal.
Unfortunately politicians tend to be the kind of (near?) psychopath who love bullying. So they chose to focus their concern on fringe personalities, actually empowering them to bully in the name of a "non-hostile environment".
There are definitely plenty of reasonable gay and trans folk who just want to be allowed to live their lives. But giving a class of people special rights and powers has attracted histrionic, narcisistic and psychopathic personalities who seek that power to scratch the itch of their resentment and who enjoy harassing anyone who doesn't kowtow to them.
I don't think this was an accident. The elite thrive on conflict and disorder and use it to augment their power.
So in the end, for the average Jane and Joe, the workplace and school have become VERY hostile environments.
I'm a bit confused by this: "... providing aid based on immutable traits instead of individual need is morally wrong."
Trans isn't an "immutable trait" - it is very mutable. In the example you give a bit further down the page, you compare two people who are effectively the same, but one is trans. The one who is currently trans can detransitioners at any time, and equally the other person can identify as trans without doing anything more than self-identifying (a rational response under the circumstances given). This is far from immutable, unlike e.g. sex (not gender), some types of physical disability/illness (blindness or diabetes for example), or race, none of which can change by mere "identification".
The GMA piece on "Lia" Thomas was like watching a hostage video, with all the "she/her" bullshit, "assigned male at birth," "cisgender," etc. They are forcing us to speak their subjectivist language.
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.
"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." This argument should work even better in other areas where self-ID is being pushed, e.g., prisons and rape crisis centers, because there's no gatekeeping whatsoever, unlike in the NCAA.
"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." If I ever have to testify in court, I hope there are trans identities involved so I can try this.
The SF mayor's concern for unhoused "gender nonconforming" people would be hilarious if she weren't so convinced that she is being a social justice hero.
Clear and convincing rebuttals to all the latest gender BS. Keep it up!
I think you dimiss the standard of not being treated poorly too quickly. There has a lot of focus today on preventing "hostile environments" at work and at school. Excellent actors, professors, and businessman have been defenestrated in pursuit of this standard.
As somebody who was badly bullied in grammar school, and as somebody who actually quit a job to get away for a scary ahole -- A continuously angry coworker who I thought was fully capable of going postal -- I think a non hostile environment is a reasonable goal.
Unfortunately politicians tend to be the kind of (near?) psychopath who love bullying. So they chose to focus their concern on fringe personalities, actually empowering them to bully in the name of a "non-hostile environment".
There are definitely plenty of reasonable gay and trans folk who just want to be allowed to live their lives. But giving a class of people special rights and powers has attracted histrionic, narcisistic and psychopathic personalities who seek that power to scratch the itch of their resentment and who enjoy harassing anyone who doesn't kowtow to them.
I don't think this was an accident. The elite thrive on conflict and disorder and use it to augment their power.
So in the end, for the average Jane and Joe, the workplace and school have become VERY hostile environments.
I'm a bit confused by this: "... providing aid based on immutable traits instead of individual need is morally wrong."
Trans isn't an "immutable trait" - it is very mutable. In the example you give a bit further down the page, you compare two people who are effectively the same, but one is trans. The one who is currently trans can detransitioners at any time, and equally the other person can identify as trans without doing anything more than self-identifying (a rational response under the circumstances given). This is far from immutable, unlike e.g. sex (not gender), some types of physical disability/illness (blindness or diabetes for example), or race, none of which can change by mere "identification".
The GMA piece on "Lia" Thomas was like watching a hostage video, with all the "she/her" bullshit, "assigned male at birth," "cisgender," etc. They are forcing us to speak their subjectivist language.
PS: John Yaniv, what a gross tranny perv freak.