I wish LGB folks would realize the damage that pulling the trans and other gender ideologies into their “community” and becoming an ever growing mish mash string of letters has done to us. We fought long and hard for marriage equality and the right to have valid loving relationships with whichever consenting adults we choose. We have achieved about as much acceptance from society as we can ever expect to have, yet the gender ideologues are trying to piggyback off our successes, risking the whole thing. Trans people should be treated with respect but their “rights”cannot be granted at the expense of everybody else. The fight for marriage equality was about equality. The fight for transgender people to be able to declare their identity and shove their way into spaces not designed for them is not equality but a form of bullying.
I think that’s because we were the first group to be really impacted by it, other than parents of TIKs. Gay men have not been affected by this to the same extent IMO. There have been massive firings of lesbians and women from their posts across all Western nations who dared to speak out, major lawsuits that have drug on for years against lesbians and women, literally burying them financially. And, of course, the numbers of gender nonconforming girls who were told they didn’t fit in and were boys and put on a pathway to harmful medicalization spiked dramatically. Affected worse have been autistic girls and girls who have survived sexual assault which is hard to take as a woman.
Everyone needs allies when you are attacked but if it weren’t for the feminist movement rising with us, the parents and families of children and youth affected and torn apart by trans ideology, for the very brave detransitioners who have spoken out, or the for the whistleblowers we wouldn’t have gotten this far. And without great writers like yourself and the great lawyers amongst us (too many working pro bono btw), we would be lost.
No, gay men have not suffered from the gender-enforcement lobby anything remotely as much as lesbians. In fact, gay men have certainly been appropriating womanhood in order to violate women's female-only spaces for as long as I'VE been alive.
That's why several of the multimillionaire and billionaire men financing this lobby are, in fact, gay men. Those men don't like women. They don't like women having rights that don't include them. And they're willing to throw lesbians under the bus in order to get what they want.
I don’t disagree but I think it’s coming from a certain type of gay man (definitely not all gay men) and it’s not necessarily specific to sexual orientation. We’ve seen it with men in women’s fashion for decades. Men telling women how they should dress and act. They gave us the anorexic models, the over sexualized woman and “the dolls” which still reign supreme. We’re supposed to be weak, afraid of bugs (like Dylan) and stupid. It’s equally prevalent with some straight men who think of women as chattels and dislike women. The dude you shared the video of is not this type - he likely adores women and would more likely to be my bestie as a lesbian and your mate.
Lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are all linked by same sex attraction. Their interests may be slightly different but have always coincided with each other. Lesbians also were the loudest voices for justice and action during the AIDS crisis starting in the 1980s. I agree that lesbians have always had a leadership role in the fight for LGB equality.
That’s quite funny. We used to be able to laugh at ourselves until the alphabet soup got ridiculous. No one really cares who anyone f’s unless it’s a minor or someone who lacks the capacity to or doesn’t consent to sex. The worst for me are the straight queers who I am convinced just want to claim a victim card or look like they’re uber progressive and cool. I vote they have their own letter since they seem to feel left out. H works for me as I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a male and a female hook up lately and call themselves “queer” and I’m dying to ask them what makes them queer?
He forgot the infamous As which always struck me as the oddest edition to the acronym. Of course they had to define themselves as either asexual or aromantic so it comes as no surprise that they seem to have been voted off the island.
Of course I was referring to the ones who are happy to add the TQ+, identities which I as a bisexual man do not understand or affiliate with. I follow and support at least two of these organizations myself.
gays pushing to take part in the patriarchal institution of marriage was a bad move. i said so right around the same time i was saying why tf are they adding a buncha letters to the lgb. let people set up whatever civil contracts they want but government shouldnt be the decider/approver of whose partnership is okay or not. thats for churches and their old men, not an equality minded secular society. we shoulda been tearing down marriage as a government function not enshrining it further
Gotta disagree. The fight for marriage equality (or civil unions recognized under law as is the case in some countries) enabled us to have equality with respect to property division, benefits afforded to straight couples that we were previously denied to us and litany of other legal and financial rights that made us effectively equal to heterosexual married couples. Churches don’t decide these things in secular societies; governments do.
In most religions, marriage is a sacrament, and exclusively heterosexual. Marriage can also be a civil contract, and a recognition of both heterosexual and same sex partnerships. Marriage as an institution can change: there's a division of church and state.
I agree 100%. Marriage is mostly an economic partnership insofar as the law is concerned, dealing with property accrued, and that is best handled through contract law. There is absolutely no reason for us to be telling the government who we will be sleeping with for (supposedly) the rest of our lives, but it's a good idea to understand what we are getting ourselves into with marriage insofar as division of property is concerned should the partnership end, and a well-written contract is the best vehicle for that.
exactly. the documents should be filed publicly with government as a clerical matter. beyond pro forma requirements (signed, competency, jurisdiction, etc) it should have no power over 'approvals' of those contracts and terms
It's not bullying. It's a conceptual framework that views that liberal assimilationist project you describe as insufficiently liberationist and insufficiently transformative. They were opposed to gay marriage too on the same grounds: It seeks entry into an inherently oppressive system.
When men force their way into female-only spaces and sports with the threat that they will use male violence to physically resist or even attack women who want them out. . .that is the definition of bullying.
Thanks for this report. This is incredible gibberish being argued at the Supreme Court. I'm female but don't think I have "limp wrists." It's incredible the bigotry the trans activists seem comfortable with.
"Justice Samuel Alito, who homed in on the ACLU’s abuse of the word gender in his Skrmetti concurrence, comes prepared. He performs his best impression of a based lesbian." lol
“I’m certainly not saying that sex means gender identity" said the ACLU lawyer.
But he doesn't have to, because the Democratic Party is doing it for him.
And unlike the ACLU, the Democratic Party has actual power.
These lawsuits and SCOTUS are a side show. Wherever Democrats are in power, they pass a law stating that sex means gender identity. And courts have no constitutional basis for overturning such laws.
Today, EVERY Democrat in Congress, both House and Senate (and Bernie too!), is a CO-SPONSOR of a bill (the so-called "Equality Act") that would make gender self-ID instanteous and unquestionable nationwide.
If that law is ever enacted, it would supercede whatever SCOTUS has to say about these cases.
And we can be near certain that the three Democrat-appointed justices on SCOTUS will vote with Big Trans.
Alas, the key leaders of the gender-critical movement in the US seem to have made a collective decision to ignore the bad fact that it is Democrats in office who want to obliterate women's sex-based rights, and will do so whenever and wherever they can.
Kara Dansky banned me permanently from her substack for pointing this out in her comments section (which she claims she does not moderate) after she wrote a highly misleading statement about how "Congress" must have decided not to pass the Equality Act because it hasn't done so for ten years now, without noting that this was ONLY because Republicans were able to block it while Democrats were 100% for it.
Yes, the Republicans under Trump are doing some bad shit, and if you care more about that than you do about women's sex-based rights, and you're not willing to pay that cost of having Republicans in power, then fine, go ahead and support Democrats.
But please stop dissembling about what you're doing.
The perfect symbol of this capitulation was a couple of pictures posted by Glenna on X of a meet-up of the gender criticals after the SCOTUS rally in a venue where they had to speak under a trans flag:
Glenna helpfully explained that "the venue charges extra to take them down".
So there was no other venue available anywhere in DC without trans flags flying? Really? THAT is who you chose to pay your money to? But not a penny more to get the symbol of your oppression down from over your heads?
Wow.
If you'd asked me, I would have paid for it.
Kara has a book coming out titled “TERFLandia: How the Global Terven Will Win the Gender Wars”.
But the global terven are losing. Just over a year ago, Germany passed a gender self-ID law. Last year, New York wrote it into their state constitution.
Terven in the US seem to have forgotten who exactly it is that has the power to deny them their rights, and are also determined to silence anyone who points it out.
EDIT: And now @dnt (who comments below) has also blocked me. Apparently actually debating effective political tactics for a GOAL THAT WE ALL SHARE cannot be tolerated.
In a recent poll nearly 80% of Americans do NOT want men to compete in women's sports, but they obviously don't feel so strongly about it that they contact their congressfolk and let them know. The only GC folks making much noise are the religious right wing and they aren't voting Democrat. GC Dems need to speak up, or women's sports and sex segregation generally will be lost.
Nearly 80% of Americans have wanted more stringent gun control for decades, and that has not changed even one Republican vote in Congress away from supporting "gun rights".
Similarly, merely speaking up will not be enough to change even one Democratic vote in Congress away from supporting "trans rights".
That is because both parties are controlled by their loud and well funded minority interest groups.
The ONLY tactic that will work is for enough Democrats in office to LOSE ELECTIONS, and to know that this issue provided the margin of defeat.
But sadly not enough of us are willing to work for that. So I believe that we will lose in the end, and that the Equality Act will be enacted into law, most likely three years from now.
The only sex-based right the Republicans want to restrict is abortion. Yes, that is bad. But there is not a law pending in Congress with unanimous co-sponsorship of Republicans to ban abortion, or anything remotely close to that.
Each of us has to decide which lesser evil to back.
Voting third party, or not at all, is equivalent to casting half a vote for each, because one or the other is going to win 99.9% of elections in the US.
yes, it is bad. and if you ever feared, had or could have an unwanted pregnancy you'd know just how bad. i'm extremely gc but would take rights over pregnancy to sports every day. ultimately ive come to think both parties are equally bad
the gop doesnt have any bills pending because theyve already pretty much got all they want minus a nationwide ban. roe was struck down, theyve beefed up scotus and hyde, and added hyde to a buncha other policies (military, healthcare, etc). they would ban it in a minute if they had the votes. and the democrats are no saviors on abortion either... https://suspensionreport.com/images/hit-parade/democrats-hate-abortion-rights-too.jpg
theyre really mostly the same party playing us on a couple issues, but for a few outliers here and there. the one thing i give the gop is they do or try to do what they say most of the time. whereas dems are theatrically and pathetically weak, liars and bumbling
To clarify, gender self-ID is not just about sports, it gives EVERY male the absolute legal right to enter ANY female-only space, at any time, at his sole discretion, and makes it illegal to ask him to leave.
please dont patronize me. i know what self id means. and i know what an unwanted pregnancy means, and it's far worse than almost anything else if trapped in a red state. i wouldnt like it, but i'm a firearm owner and feel safe enough most places i go. as a man you will never understand having agency over your body taken away (unless incarcerated or drafted). forced pregnancy is literal slavery
I am not patronizing you. You wrote that you "would take rights over pregnancy to sports every day", and I was pointing out that it's not just sports. I can only respond to the words you choose to use, I can't read your mind.
I was at the dinner under the trans flags. I viewed us celebrating there as making a mockery of their decorations. I also appreciated the fact that the owners of this place opened their venue to people forcefully representing views with which they probably disagree. Not every venue in DC would have done that. Last year, I attended the book launch party for David Zweig's Covid policy critical book "An Abundance of Caution", and he mentioned how hard it was to find a venue. The place that ended up hosting his event was a bar whose owner had gotten himself in trouble for not enforcing the vaccine mandate. I imagine "anti-trans" events will have an even harder time to be welcomed in DC.
If trans, like every other social woe, is rooted in Patriarchy, as Kara insists, then why is the home of 20th Century patriarchy, the GOP, the ones fighting to preserve sex-based reality and the protection of women and girls?
Kara's probable "feminist analysis" response: "They need sex to exist in order to be sexist."
Terrific as always. Genderwoo is a Mad Cow Disease prion that runs around misfolding proteins everywhere.
Colleges argued that "football was naturally a more expensive program that should lead to schools spending more on boys" - Football is in fact an insanely expensive sport, football coaches are the best-paid public servants in the country, and the average DIV I team has as many scholarships as four or five women's teams in other sports. The reason we do not have women's football is not the delicate female body, per the old excuse. The reason is that it would cost more than the women's soccer, softball, and basketball teams put together, and thus threaten their funding. This was explained to me by a campus athletic director 25 years ago.
Women can still play tackle football if they want to, but they can only play on a men's team. Football is therefore a PERFECT test of every premise behind men in women's sports, so it is really frustrating that no one ever talks about it. Name one woman with a current college football scholarship. Name one female NFL player. You cannot do either. Why, it is almost as if sex matters in sports!
I am aware of one woman who kicked an extra point in a preseason NFL game. Placekicker is by far the most common position for any woman in the game. As a matter of fact, I am only aware of ONE female who has played football, college or professional, with men, who was not a placekicker. Not coincidentally, the placekicker is the single most protected player on the field, with special rules that punish even incidental contact by the other team in most cases. So the one position that any woman has ever seemed to be able to fill, even for an instant, with any skill, on any men's team is the one that takes the fewest hits and tackles, does the least running, and does not require any upper body strength. The exception absolutely, resolutely proves the rule.
Block blatantly used a regressive stereotype (“limp wrists”- we’re looking at you, gay men) in the courtroom to define sex, once again proving all of our points. He’s the worst attorney in the history of law.
He also said, "I don't think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex," and, "If there is no sex-based biological distinction, [there is no] inherent unfairness."
I very much enjoyed the article: good snark and factual data.
This is an example of ordinary trans “utterances” which have as their only purpose to confuse, consume resources, and parasitically add burden to any system which they encounter.
In reality, these should all be dismissed instantly under “twelve b 6” because there is no way to show someone who is male has a female brain, is female “inside” or in any other way is female. It implausible on the face of it.
We just haven’t evolved automatic rejection of implausible sexual mimicry claims.
We will.
We really are being forced to adjudicate that men can’t be women.
The only major difference between female and male brains is size. So when a man says, "I have a female brain," he is saying, "I have a very very very small brain."
Not my husband. He's a normal-sized guy who figures if he can't make me happy through his own efforts, he's not going to be able to make me happy through a body part.
Even better, what if sex did not exist? Then everyone would magically no longer differentiate on the basis of body types. And sexism would magically disappear. And actually the root cause of most human misery (heteronormativity) would as well.
We all are. I’m happy doctors did not castrate you, render you sterile and take away your sexual functioning by blocking your natural puberty and putting you on wrong sex hormones. For anyone who still supports this and thinks it’s okay to tell effeminate boys they’re girls or gender nonconforming girls they are boys and can change sex, step right up and you be the guinea pig to try to turn humans into the opposite sex.
There aren’t many older LGB persons who I haven’t heard say what you just said, me included. I know I’d have drunk the Koolaid as a kid, especially with parental support, being love bombed and doctors telling me I could be a boy.
The only traumatic thing my dad did to me was force me to put down the fashion magazines and join a sport after school. I ran cross country and track and was never very good at it but I got some exercise, so that was ok.
Damn him. You could have added so much to men’s fashion which seems to be sorely lacking in style. All kids should be encouraged to do sports IMO. It builds character and strength. At least he didn’t throw you into a hockey league or something radical where you would have been pummeled before you learnt how to run fast. You are one of the lucky ones.
"A few minutes later, Chief Justice John Roberts regained his composure after silently cracking up over the 'limp wrists' line. . .[then] picked [that lawyer] apart like a clock."
This article is so well written and also so funny. I literally spit my coffee across the room over some of your comments. “We didn’t spend less money on students with delicate wrists. Look, our diving team is all gay guys!” Thank you so much for all that you do.
If transgender women are biological males who identify as female, then doesn’t that make them a subgroup of biological males?
Biological males, who identify internally, in an unobservable, unverifiable way as female remain biological males.
It seems illogical to claim biological males who identify as female are a subset of biological females given that no one can change their biological sex no matter how desperately they long to do so.
We may as a society decide we want to create sensitive targeted laws recognizing some people desire to be other than how they were born. Yet sustainable policy requires careful transparent discussion. If discussion itself is labeled “harm”, the opportunity to create functional, agreed upon, democratically supported laws diminishes.
I wish LGB folks would realize the damage that pulling the trans and other gender ideologies into their “community” and becoming an ever growing mish mash string of letters has done to us. We fought long and hard for marriage equality and the right to have valid loving relationships with whichever consenting adults we choose. We have achieved about as much acceptance from society as we can ever expect to have, yet the gender ideologues are trying to piggyback off our successes, risking the whole thing. Trans people should be treated with respect but their “rights”cannot be granted at the expense of everybody else. The fight for marriage equality was about equality. The fight for transgender people to be able to declare their identity and shove their way into spaces not designed for them is not equality but a form of bullying.
The trans bought their way into the gay rights orgs because they are funded by Pharma and pervert AGP billionaires
Many LGB folks do realize:
LGB Courage Coalition
LGB Alliance International
Gays Against Groomers
Thank you for saying that. It is so important for LGB people to realize that they are not alone and to find the strength to speak out.
Credit where credit is due:
Lesbians have been leading this fight since long before any of the rest of us even knew it was going on.
I think that’s because we were the first group to be really impacted by it, other than parents of TIKs. Gay men have not been affected by this to the same extent IMO. There have been massive firings of lesbians and women from their posts across all Western nations who dared to speak out, major lawsuits that have drug on for years against lesbians and women, literally burying them financially. And, of course, the numbers of gender nonconforming girls who were told they didn’t fit in and were boys and put on a pathway to harmful medicalization spiked dramatically. Affected worse have been autistic girls and girls who have survived sexual assault which is hard to take as a woman.
Everyone needs allies when you are attacked but if it weren’t for the feminist movement rising with us, the parents and families of children and youth affected and torn apart by trans ideology, for the very brave detransitioners who have spoken out, or the for the whistleblowers we wouldn’t have gotten this far. And without great writers like yourself and the great lawyers amongst us (too many working pro bono btw), we would be lost.
No, gay men have not suffered from the gender-enforcement lobby anything remotely as much as lesbians. In fact, gay men have certainly been appropriating womanhood in order to violate women's female-only spaces for as long as I'VE been alive.
That's why several of the multimillionaire and billionaire men financing this lobby are, in fact, gay men. Those men don't like women. They don't like women having rights that don't include them. And they're willing to throw lesbians under the bus in order to get what they want.
I don’t disagree but I think it’s coming from a certain type of gay man (definitely not all gay men) and it’s not necessarily specific to sexual orientation. We’ve seen it with men in women’s fashion for decades. Men telling women how they should dress and act. They gave us the anorexic models, the over sexualized woman and “the dolls” which still reign supreme. We’re supposed to be weak, afraid of bugs (like Dylan) and stupid. It’s equally prevalent with some straight men who think of women as chattels and dislike women. The dude you shared the video of is not this type - he likely adores women and would more likely to be my bestie as a lesbian and your mate.
Lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are all linked by same sex attraction. Their interests may be slightly different but have always coincided with each other. Lesbians also were the loudest voices for justice and action during the AIDS crisis starting in the 1980s. I agree that lesbians have always had a leadership role in the fight for LGB equality.
See Kara Dansky's substack piece "Some Thoughts on Sexual Orientation." In the comments, Jess Grant posted this link to a comedy routine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK1Gbkq_80Y
"You T's tell us who you're f'ing, or we're going to take you off the Who We're F'ing flag."
🤣🤣🤣
That’s quite funny. We used to be able to laugh at ourselves until the alphabet soup got ridiculous. No one really cares who anyone f’s unless it’s a minor or someone who lacks the capacity to or doesn’t consent to sex. The worst for me are the straight queers who I am convinced just want to claim a victim card or look like they’re uber progressive and cool. I vote they have their own letter since they seem to feel left out. H works for me as I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a male and a female hook up lately and call themselves “queer” and I’m dying to ask them what makes them queer?
He forgot the infamous As which always struck me as the oddest edition to the acronym. Of course they had to define themselves as either asexual or aromantic so it comes as no surprise that they seem to have been voted off the island.
Of course I was referring to the ones who are happy to add the TQ+, identities which I as a bisexual man do not understand or affiliate with. I follow and support at least two of these organizations myself.
gays pushing to take part in the patriarchal institution of marriage was a bad move. i said so right around the same time i was saying why tf are they adding a buncha letters to the lgb. let people set up whatever civil contracts they want but government shouldnt be the decider/approver of whose partnership is okay or not. thats for churches and their old men, not an equality minded secular society. we shoulda been tearing down marriage as a government function not enshrining it further
Gotta disagree. The fight for marriage equality (or civil unions recognized under law as is the case in some countries) enabled us to have equality with respect to property division, benefits afforded to straight couples that we were previously denied to us and litany of other legal and financial rights that made us effectively equal to heterosexual married couples. Churches don’t decide these things in secular societies; governments do.
no people do, with contracts. marriage is based in religion
In most religions, marriage is a sacrament, and exclusively heterosexual. Marriage can also be a civil contract, and a recognition of both heterosexual and same sex partnerships. Marriage as an institution can change: there's a division of church and state.
I agree 100%. Marriage is mostly an economic partnership insofar as the law is concerned, dealing with property accrued, and that is best handled through contract law. There is absolutely no reason for us to be telling the government who we will be sleeping with for (supposedly) the rest of our lives, but it's a good idea to understand what we are getting ourselves into with marriage insofar as division of property is concerned should the partnership end, and a well-written contract is the best vehicle for that.
exactly. the documents should be filed publicly with government as a clerical matter. beyond pro forma requirements (signed, competency, jurisdiction, etc) it should have no power over 'approvals' of those contracts and terms
It's not bullying. It's a conceptual framework that views that liberal assimilationist project you describe as insufficiently liberationist and insufficiently transformative. They were opposed to gay marriage too on the same grounds: It seeks entry into an inherently oppressive system.
It absolutely IS bullying.
When men force their way into female-only spaces and sports with the threat that they will use male violence to physically resist or even attack women who want them out. . .that is the definition of bullying.
Thanks for this report. This is incredible gibberish being argued at the Supreme Court. I'm female but don't think I have "limp wrists." It's incredible the bigotry the trans activists seem comfortable with.
These people are arguing absurdities.
it basically boils down to trans people think the concept of sex itself is discriminatory by being too narrowly defined.
which is insane.
"Justice Samuel Alito, who homed in on the ACLU’s abuse of the word gender in his Skrmetti concurrence, comes prepared. He performs his best impression of a based lesbian." lol
This post is great.
She is hilarious. Although I did have to google what a “based lesbian” was.
“I’m certainly not saying that sex means gender identity" said the ACLU lawyer.
But he doesn't have to, because the Democratic Party is doing it for him.
And unlike the ACLU, the Democratic Party has actual power.
These lawsuits and SCOTUS are a side show. Wherever Democrats are in power, they pass a law stating that sex means gender identity. And courts have no constitutional basis for overturning such laws.
Today, EVERY Democrat in Congress, both House and Senate (and Bernie too!), is a CO-SPONSOR of a bill (the so-called "Equality Act") that would make gender self-ID instanteous and unquestionable nationwide.
If that law is ever enacted, it would supercede whatever SCOTUS has to say about these cases.
And we can be near certain that the three Democrat-appointed justices on SCOTUS will vote with Big Trans.
Alas, the key leaders of the gender-critical movement in the US seem to have made a collective decision to ignore the bad fact that it is Democrats in office who want to obliterate women's sex-based rights, and will do so whenever and wherever they can.
Kara Dansky banned me permanently from her substack for pointing this out in her comments section (which she claims she does not moderate) after she wrote a highly misleading statement about how "Congress" must have decided not to pass the Equality Act because it hasn't done so for ten years now, without noting that this was ONLY because Republicans were able to block it while Democrats were 100% for it.
Yes, the Republicans under Trump are doing some bad shit, and if you care more about that than you do about women's sex-based rights, and you're not willing to pay that cost of having Republicans in power, then fine, go ahead and support Democrats.
But please stop dissembling about what you're doing.
The perfect symbol of this capitulation was a couple of pictures posted by Glenna on X of a meet-up of the gender criticals after the SCOTUS rally in a venue where they had to speak under a trans flag:
https://x.com/glennagoldis/status/2011216942531752300
https://x.com/glennagoldis/status/2011227077807054867
Glenna helpfully explained that "the venue charges extra to take them down".
So there was no other venue available anywhere in DC without trans flags flying? Really? THAT is who you chose to pay your money to? But not a penny more to get the symbol of your oppression down from over your heads?
Wow.
If you'd asked me, I would have paid for it.
Kara has a book coming out titled “TERFLandia: How the Global Terven Will Win the Gender Wars”.
But the global terven are losing. Just over a year ago, Germany passed a gender self-ID law. Last year, New York wrote it into their state constitution.
Terven in the US seem to have forgotten who exactly it is that has the power to deny them their rights, and are also determined to silence anyone who points it out.
EDIT: And now @dnt (who comments below) has also blocked me. Apparently actually debating effective political tactics for a GOAL THAT WE ALL SHARE cannot be tolerated.
In a recent poll nearly 80% of Americans do NOT want men to compete in women's sports, but they obviously don't feel so strongly about it that they contact their congressfolk and let them know. The only GC folks making much noise are the religious right wing and they aren't voting Democrat. GC Dems need to speak up, or women's sports and sex segregation generally will be lost.
Nearly 80% of Americans have wanted more stringent gun control for decades, and that has not changed even one Republican vote in Congress away from supporting "gun rights".
Similarly, merely speaking up will not be enough to change even one Democratic vote in Congress away from supporting "trans rights".
That is because both parties are controlled by their loud and well funded minority interest groups.
The ONLY tactic that will work is for enough Democrats in office to LOSE ELECTIONS, and to know that this issue provided the margin of defeat.
But sadly not enough of us are willing to work for that. So I believe that we will lose in the end, and that the Equality Act will be enacted into law, most likely three years from now.
ofc gop wants to deny women other sex based rights, so we lose with both teams
The only sex-based right the Republicans want to restrict is abortion. Yes, that is bad. But there is not a law pending in Congress with unanimous co-sponsorship of Republicans to ban abortion, or anything remotely close to that.
Each of us has to decide which lesser evil to back.
Voting third party, or not at all, is equivalent to casting half a vote for each, because one or the other is going to win 99.9% of elections in the US.
Those are the bad facts.
yes, it is bad. and if you ever feared, had or could have an unwanted pregnancy you'd know just how bad. i'm extremely gc but would take rights over pregnancy to sports every day. ultimately ive come to think both parties are equally bad
the gop doesnt have any bills pending because theyve already pretty much got all they want minus a nationwide ban. roe was struck down, theyve beefed up scotus and hyde, and added hyde to a buncha other policies (military, healthcare, etc). they would ban it in a minute if they had the votes. and the democrats are no saviors on abortion either... https://suspensionreport.com/images/hit-parade/democrats-hate-abortion-rights-too.jpg
https://suspensionreport.com/womens-rights/abortion-rights
theyre really mostly the same party playing us on a couple issues, but for a few outliers here and there. the one thing i give the gop is they do or try to do what they say most of the time. whereas dems are theatrically and pathetically weak, liars and bumbling
(fixed typos)
To clarify, gender self-ID is not just about sports, it gives EVERY male the absolute legal right to enter ANY female-only space, at any time, at his sole discretion, and makes it illegal to ask him to leave.
please dont patronize me. i know what self id means. and i know what an unwanted pregnancy means, and it's far worse than almost anything else if trapped in a red state. i wouldnt like it, but i'm a firearm owner and feel safe enough most places i go. as a man you will never understand having agency over your body taken away (unless incarcerated or drafted). forced pregnancy is literal slavery
I am not patronizing you. You wrote that you "would take rights over pregnancy to sports every day", and I was pointing out that it's not just sports. I can only respond to the words you choose to use, I can't read your mind.
I was at the dinner under the trans flags. I viewed us celebrating there as making a mockery of their decorations. I also appreciated the fact that the owners of this place opened their venue to people forcefully representing views with which they probably disagree. Not every venue in DC would have done that. Last year, I attended the book launch party for David Zweig's Covid policy critical book "An Abundance of Caution", and he mentioned how hard it was to find a venue. The place that ended up hosting his event was a bar whose owner had gotten himself in trouble for not enforcing the vaccine mandate. I imagine "anti-trans" events will have an even harder time to be welcomed in DC.
I appreciate your sharing your perspective on this.
If trans, like every other social woe, is rooted in Patriarchy, as Kara insists, then why is the home of 20th Century patriarchy, the GOP, the ones fighting to preserve sex-based reality and the protection of women and girls?
Kara's probable "feminist analysis" response: "They need sex to exist in order to be sexist."
I don't care about political or philosophical theory. I only care about what laws are going to be enacted by which party.
Terrific as always. Genderwoo is a Mad Cow Disease prion that runs around misfolding proteins everywhere.
Colleges argued that "football was naturally a more expensive program that should lead to schools spending more on boys" - Football is in fact an insanely expensive sport, football coaches are the best-paid public servants in the country, and the average DIV I team has as many scholarships as four or five women's teams in other sports. The reason we do not have women's football is not the delicate female body, per the old excuse. The reason is that it would cost more than the women's soccer, softball, and basketball teams put together, and thus threaten their funding. This was explained to me by a campus athletic director 25 years ago.
Women can still play tackle football if they want to, but they can only play on a men's team. Football is therefore a PERFECT test of every premise behind men in women's sports, so it is really frustrating that no one ever talks about it. Name one woman with a current college football scholarship. Name one female NFL player. You cannot do either. Why, it is almost as if sex matters in sports!
I am aware of one woman who kicked an extra point in a preseason NFL game. Placekicker is by far the most common position for any woman in the game. As a matter of fact, I am only aware of ONE female who has played football, college or professional, with men, who was not a placekicker. Not coincidentally, the placekicker is the single most protected player on the field, with special rules that punish even incidental contact by the other team in most cases. So the one position that any woman has ever seemed to be able to fill, even for an instant, with any skill, on any men's team is the one that takes the fewest hits and tackles, does the least running, and does not require any upper body strength. The exception absolutely, resolutely proves the rule.
He performs his best impression of a based lesbian 😂
Block blatantly used a regressive stereotype (“limp wrists”- we’re looking at you, gay men) in the courtroom to define sex, once again proving all of our points. He’s the worst attorney in the history of law.
He also said, "I don't think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex," and, "If there is no sex-based biological distinction, [there is no] inherent unfairness."
TLDR:
"Don't define sex, or we'll have no argument."
I very much enjoyed the article: good snark and factual data.
This is an example of ordinary trans “utterances” which have as their only purpose to confuse, consume resources, and parasitically add burden to any system which they encounter.
In reality, these should all be dismissed instantly under “twelve b 6” because there is no way to show someone who is male has a female brain, is female “inside” or in any other way is female. It implausible on the face of it.
We just haven’t evolved automatic rejection of implausible sexual mimicry claims.
We will.
We really are being forced to adjudicate that men can’t be women.
What a waste.
The only major difference between female and male brains is size. So when a man says, "I have a female brain," he is saying, "I have a very very very small brain."
To which women say, "Duh."
We all know men are utterly paranoid about size.
Not my husband. He's a normal-sized guy who figures if he can't make me happy through his own efforts, he's not going to be able to make me happy through a body part.
Great job as usual Glenna.
Gorsuch's Bostock decision is shitty. It outlaws discrimination based on Gender, not Sex.
"trans-credulous"
Mic drop.
Sexism exists at the patriarchy's behest. What if sex discrimination did not exist? Oh, my.
Even better, what if sex did not exist? Then everyone would magically no longer differentiate on the basis of body types. And sexism would magically disappear. And actually the root cause of most human misery (heteronormativity) would as well.
That's the argument.
dream all you want. sex exists. and it’s binary
If 99.3% of us just look down there appears to be no confusion about sex.
I wish to thank the heterosexuals who have weighed in because without them, we might just be extinct as a species.
One thing does seem clear: if sex doesn’t exist then homosexuality doesn’t either. And there we are: erased again.
So glad I grew up in a time when being an effeminate boy meant you were probably gay and not ready to transition.
We all are. I’m happy doctors did not castrate you, render you sterile and take away your sexual functioning by blocking your natural puberty and putting you on wrong sex hormones. For anyone who still supports this and thinks it’s okay to tell effeminate boys they’re girls or gender nonconforming girls they are boys and can change sex, step right up and you be the guinea pig to try to turn humans into the opposite sex.
There aren’t many older LGB persons who I haven’t heard say what you just said, me included. I know I’d have drunk the Koolaid as a kid, especially with parental support, being love bombed and doctors telling me I could be a boy.
The only traumatic thing my dad did to me was force me to put down the fashion magazines and join a sport after school. I ran cross country and track and was never very good at it but I got some exercise, so that was ok.
Damn him. You could have added so much to men’s fashion which seems to be sorely lacking in style. All kids should be encouraged to do sports IMO. It builds character and strength. At least he didn’t throw you into a hockey league or something radical where you would have been pummeled before you learnt how to run fast. You are one of the lucky ones.
If there is no sex in law, there are neither sex-based nor same-sex rights.
Straight men win again!
"A few minutes later, Chief Justice John Roberts regained his composure after silently cracking up over the 'limp wrists' line. . .[then] picked [that lawyer] apart like a clock."
I am ded.
💀
This article is so well written and also so funny. I literally spit my coffee across the room over some of your comments. “We didn’t spend less money on students with delicate wrists. Look, our diving team is all gay guys!” Thank you so much for all that you do.
🤣
If transgender women are biological males who identify as female, then doesn’t that make them a subgroup of biological males?
Biological males, who identify internally, in an unobservable, unverifiable way as female remain biological males.
It seems illogical to claim biological males who identify as female are a subset of biological females given that no one can change their biological sex no matter how desperately they long to do so.
We may as a society decide we want to create sensitive targeted laws recognizing some people desire to be other than how they were born. Yet sustainable policy requires careful transparent discussion. If discussion itself is labeled “harm”, the opportunity to create functional, agreed upon, democratically supported laws diminishes.
"doesn’t that make them a subgroup of biological males?"
Why, yes. Yes, it does.