“We can’t infer that voters who supported Prop 1 wanted to protect transgender rights.” Truer words were seldom spoken. I have to say, however, that the advocacy against Prop 1 across the political spectrum offered a case study in how not to make your point. The only good advocacy I saw came from Lisa Selin Davis, brilliantly pitched to those who needed to hear it most—if the NY Times, to which she pitched it, had printed it, it could have helped. But of course, as per usual, that did not happen. https://open.substack.com/pub/lisaselindavis/p/if-only-there-were-a-not-yet-button?r=16541&utm_medium=ios
The Republicans resorted to, among other things, ridiculous fearmongering, eg, that inserting “national origin” as a protected category would unleash a flood of privileges for illegal immigrants. The leftward side’s arguments meanwhile were confused and conclusory at best. None of it was designed to convince anyone who was not already convinced. In sum, what we saw was a quintessential pig’s breakfast of phenomenally unpersuasive advocacy. Hardly surprising that it was not successful.
Meanwhile, Liz Krueger et al were claiming that there was nothing different from what was already in state law on these issues. Not so, but so far as I could see, no one with any kind of megaphone challenged that. For one, under the state human rights law, while hardly a paragon of legal writing, at least sex was not specifically redefined to include gender identity and expression, but rather put the groups now entitled to protected status side by side. Also, in the Human Rights Law, while insufficient, to be sure, there was at least an escape valve to allow for discrimination on the basis of sex in certain instances in 296(b). What little protection that offered has now been wiped out.
So, now, we are stuck ever after with this junk in our state constitution. A litigator’s paradise, and for the rest of us pure hell. What a debacle.
I have two Hooters anecdotes from my 'lived experience' that I was going to pour out here, but on second thought I'm going to save them for our next pod convo. Separately, thanks for making me feel a little less despondent about living in California. :)
For gender critical feminists like myself, this is the one silver lining in a Trump win -- that the federal government will now be on the side of protecting women's sports, opportunities, and safety. It is shocking to see the Democratic Party embrace an ideology that essentially erases women.
“We can’t infer that voters who supported Prop 1 wanted to protect transgender rights.” Truer words were seldom spoken. I have to say, however, that the advocacy against Prop 1 across the political spectrum offered a case study in how not to make your point. The only good advocacy I saw came from Lisa Selin Davis, brilliantly pitched to those who needed to hear it most—if the NY Times, to which she pitched it, had printed it, it could have helped. But of course, as per usual, that did not happen. https://open.substack.com/pub/lisaselindavis/p/if-only-there-were-a-not-yet-button?r=16541&utm_medium=ios
The Republicans resorted to, among other things, ridiculous fearmongering, eg, that inserting “national origin” as a protected category would unleash a flood of privileges for illegal immigrants. The leftward side’s arguments meanwhile were confused and conclusory at best. None of it was designed to convince anyone who was not already convinced. In sum, what we saw was a quintessential pig’s breakfast of phenomenally unpersuasive advocacy. Hardly surprising that it was not successful.
Meanwhile, Liz Krueger et al were claiming that there was nothing different from what was already in state law on these issues. Not so, but so far as I could see, no one with any kind of megaphone challenged that. For one, under the state human rights law, while hardly a paragon of legal writing, at least sex was not specifically redefined to include gender identity and expression, but rather put the groups now entitled to protected status side by side. Also, in the Human Rights Law, while insufficient, to be sure, there was at least an escape valve to allow for discrimination on the basis of sex in certain instances in 296(b). What little protection that offered has now been wiped out.
So, now, we are stuck ever after with this junk in our state constitution. A litigator’s paradise, and for the rest of us pure hell. What a debacle.
I have two Hooters anecdotes from my 'lived experience' that I was going to pour out here, but on second thought I'm going to save them for our next pod convo. Separately, thanks for making me feel a little less despondent about living in California. :)
Awful news!
For gender critical feminists like myself, this is the one silver lining in a Trump win -- that the federal government will now be on the side of protecting women's sports, opportunities, and safety. It is shocking to see the Democratic Party embrace an ideology that essentially erases women.
Even 27% support for high school biological males playing girls sports sounds high. I guess it depends on how you ask the question
https://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=42574e21-871e-4023-9ef2-d9b5b39f47c8
You can get a quarter of people to support just about anything.