The vast majority of people today have no idea what’s going on. Thank you for continuing to fight this fight for truth and justice, and writing about it so we can share in our own efforts to educate people about what’s happening under their noses.
Lisa: I can’t thank you enough for your dedication and hard work trying to pry discussion of Prop 1, and all the issues that concern us here, out of the cold, dead hands of partisanship.
Earlier this week, we had lunch with four friends we haven’t seen in a while, all Democrats and all older lesbians. They are all good, decent people. Two of them are lawyers, and all are university educated. We have tried in the past to offer information on the gender identity issue, but while they listened, it did not stick. We’d hoped to try again at lunch at least to explain some of the legal problems in Prop 1. Unfortunately, all four had already voted—and proudly—for Prop 1. Here, if it is of use to anyone else, is what we would have tried to explain (though I doubt we would have got very far, as they come from a place of zero accurate information on the entire topic, let alone Prop 1).
Liz Kreuger and others who are saying what she did on the Brian Lehrer show are in error. There are at least two important differences between existing state law (the Human Rights Law) and Prop 1.
First: unlike the existing Human Rights Law, Prop 1 specifically redefines sex to include “gender identity” and “gender expression,” rather than, as the existing law does, to list those categories alongside “sex.” The Human Rights Law thus at least allows for judicial assessments based on a conflict of rights (between sex and gender identity/expression). In contrast, Prop 1 will allow men who self-identify as women to be categorized as women for all purposes, making it impossible to even make a claim that women have a right to single-sex spaces under any circumstances.
Second: The Human Rights Law contains language that specifically allows for single-sex spaces under certain circumstances, as follows: “Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent the barring of any person, because of the sex of such person, from places of public accommodation, resort or amusement if the division grants an exemption based on bona fide considerations of public policy; nor shall this subdivision apply to the rental of rooms in a housing accommodation which restricts such rental to individuals of one sex.” As Prop 1 will override any state law provisions in conflict with the constitutional provision, this single-sex-protective language, weak though it is, will become dead-letter.
As a result, unlike the existing Human Rights Law, Prop 1 will remove any right at all for women to challenge the right of men who self-identify as women to play on women’s sports teams, be housed in women’s prisons and dormitories, and use women-only domestic violence and rape crisis shelters, public changing rooms, and public toilets. In addition, as these men will be considered women for all purposes under law, women will have no right to object to their presence in single-sex spaces, thus rendering laws against indecent exposure, voyeurism, and the like moot.
Also, to the extent any law or regulation already contains problematic language like that Kreuger described, it can be changed far more easily than the state constitution. Once Prop 1 goes into the constitution, we will never get it out—and I fear strongly that is where we are headed in New York.
If this is of any use to anyone, I've just written to Hochul and Gillibrand specifically on the issue of Prop 1. Here is the text I used, if anyone else wants to write their electeds yet once again:
Dear ___________: I am a lifelong Democrat. I am writing because I, along with many other Democratic women, have grave concerns about Prop 1, and our concerns are not being heard. In consequence, we are now on the brink of passing a constitutional amendment which is poorly drafted, will be a litigator's paradise, and, by codifying self-ID within the definition of "sex," has the potential to severely erode long-fought for rights and safe spaces for women and girls.
Specifically, unlike what Liz Kreuger and others have stated, it does not merely codify what is already in the Human Rights Law in at least two important respects:
First: unlike the existing Human Rights Law, Prop 1 specifically redefines sex to include “gender identity” and “gender expression,” rather than, as the existing law does, to list those categories alongside “sex.” The Human Rights Law thus at least allows for judicial assessments based on a conflict of rights (between sex and gender identity/expression). In contrast, Prop 1 will allow men who self-identify as women to be categorized as women for all purposes, making it impossible to even make a claim that women have a right to single-sex spaces under any circumstances.
Second: The Human Rights Law contains language that specifically allows for single-sex spaces under certain circumstances, as follows: “Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent the barring of any person, because of the sex of such person, from places of public accommodation, resort or amusement if the division grants an exemption based on bona fide considerations of public policy; nor shall this subdivision apply to the rental of rooms in a housing accommodation which restricts such rental to individuals of one sex.” As Prop 1 will override any state law provisions in conflict with the constitutional provision, this single-sex-protective language will become dead-letter.
As a result, unlike the existing Human Rights Law, Prop 1 has the serious potential to remove any right at all for women to challenge the right of men who self-identify as women to play on women’s sports teams, be housed in women’s prisons and dormitories, and use women-only domestic violence and rape crisis shelters, public changing rooms, and public toilets. In addition, as these men will be considered women for all purposes under law, women will have no right to object to their presence in single-sex spaces, thus rendering laws against indecent exposure, voyeurism, and the like moot.
The Democrats—my party all my adult life—have made a serious mistake here. Please start listening to Democratic women who are concerned about what Prop 1 portends. We are not wild-eyed crazies. We want and need the Democrats to succeed and thrive, but that will not happen until and unless the Democrats truly grapple with the problems posed by Prop 1.
I believe constitutional challenges will occur if this passes. If passed, it means the state legislature will take it up. It's been advertised as "reproductive rights" because it says "pregnancy choices" as a protected class as well. NY state already has Roe in state law since 2019, thus, Prop 1 is force-teaming and institutional capture as exactly outlined in the infamous Yogiakarta Principles. I don't want to be the test case, but I can imagine being sued for naming my ex-husband, whom I experienced as a man for nearly 20 years, rather than saying the PC "former spouse" or the woke "ex-wife." There are many, many first amendment violations in Proposal 1.
The conflation of gay with trans and access to abortion with access to GAC have turned out to be genius -- or lucky dart throws -- on the part of Trans Activists. And both are alarming to me. How do we break through? Lisa, I think it is useful you pressed them; I imagine you felt angry and defeated in the moment and maybe as you were writing? Don't stop. And keep letting us know. You are not alone and you help me keep on.
Every opportunity I have to state “There is no ‘LGBT community’; I have as much in common (as a gay woman) with people who suffer from ‘gender dysphoria’ as heterosexual people— which happens to be nothing,”
Lisa, I might be able to give you some hope here, at least for the medium term. Bad laws, even constitutional provisions, can be walked back if their unintended consequences become apparent to enough people. We have very recent experience with that here in Oregon. Measure 110, which enshrined in state law another progressive priority, in this case decriminalizing hard drugs, easily passed here in 2020 (and I voted for it!). This corresponded with an explosion in visible drug use and overdoses here, and public opinion turned on it so fast that our very progressive legislature and governor have already rolled back significant parts of it.
My point being, if Prop 1 passes in New York it may well sit there in your constitution for a very long time. But if enough people directly experience negative consequences from it (and having direct negative experiences with things like bathrooms or sports seems to be one way people change their minds on this), it's not hard to imagine some future clarifying legislation rendering the worst parts of it moot. Maybe very quickly, as we experienced here in Oregon.
Unfortunately it usually takes a lot of people getting hurt to get to that point, which is why its so important to try to get those competing views out of the partisan media bubbles before that happens.
I agree, but hence Lisa’s frustration with not allowing voters to become genuinely educated about the substance, and likely consequences of this proposed legislation.
Thanks for this. Some excellent insights. I have been thinking, too, that as more people experience the negative effects of the proposal, the tide could change, maybe even rapidly. Though, as you say, the horror is thinking of the number of people harmed until that happens.
This issue has made me question a lot of what I read these days. I sure hope sanity returns soon. I listened to the Memory Hole podcast the other day and it really made me think about all the other weird trends our society has gone through. I don’t think it’s really possible to innoculate ourselves against untruths and scams. We’re just too guided by feelings. We do have to try though. Thank you, Lisa.
In my polling place 2 hours' drive north of NYC, I spoke with voters blocks from the building, who were asking about places to park--early voting was unusually crowded. I asked them about voting on Proposal 1, and all were vehement about voting NO. In a discussion zoom call at protectkidsNY.org, a pediatrician in Manhattan said she's desperately worried about her young patients coming in with requests for wrong sex hormones. Other participants said, great you're a doctor, speak out. Her reply was that she has no voice, as the hospital she's affiliated with has a big "gender" center and performs the operations. This is likely Mount Sinai. Other participants said they talk to their neighbors about Title IX and preserving girls sports, but they "avoid the trans issue because its so controversial and toxic." This is completely illogical because "gender" is exactly why boys are inserting themselves into the girls' teams and locker rooms. Michelle Hinchey a Dem incumbent State Senator, refused to discuss any "gender" issues in her debates with her Republican opponent, Patrick Sheehy. Her staffers were just like the WNYC peeps when I contacted her last time she was elected, to warn about the growing ranks of detransitioners; there's a big malpractice case by a female regretter in Rhinebeck.
I don't have any idea how that race will go, because I see GOP voters coming out of the woodwork here. I see Latinos and African-Americans voting GOP out of a desire to put brakes on school programs "trans-ing" their grandsons and granddaughters. I had a wonderful hour-long chat with Sheehy's young female campaign worker. A graduate of Wellesley about 8 years ago, she related how this women's college suddenly had a bunch of coeds claiming to be male. She noted that most of them drifted downward into much worse mental health as they continued on testosterone and obsessed about whether to have their breasts surgically removed. She finds her "non-binary" friends to be utterly narcissistic and annoying.
The fact that Proposal 1 has "gender expression" as well as "gender identity" is particularly illogical. This opens up anyone to a civil rights lawsuit who can't recall which pronouns a "gender fluid" individual is, and to teachers who can't recall what student ZeeZer is this week.
Thanks for this fascinating report about what is happening in and around the Hudson Valley, where we lived for 15 years. I did not know there was a detrans lawsuit coming out of Rhinebeck, wow. If you have anything more on that, do say, as I would like to follow it. From what you describe, it seems possible this misguided strategy of pushing Prop 1 will backfire spectacularly in terms of who turns out to vote in NY—though a lot will depend on what happens in NYC, as its voter complement is so large, and voter turnout here has been huge.
Well, in response to my local papers, and I mean papers on sidewalks, held by pebbles, I got a police visit. And these fuckers trespassed my property "looking for lost dog" so letters. I was visited by Police! an officer said, "This is 2024!"
There's something so sexist about all this. The idea that saying you're actually a girl instead of what you really are, a biological boy, signals to people that you're all of a sudden bestowed with all this purity and wisdom and honesty and truth BECAUSE YOU NOW SAY YOU'RE FEMALE.
Like, a real woman would never lie, right? You know, like a MAN would? Therefore she must really be a woman! Hoorah, she's one of us now!
It's infuriating but not surprising that Brian completely ignored your views on this. I will say though that I am confused by the wording of the proposal. It isn't clear to me that the phrase "sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, [etc.]" excludes biological sex. "Including" doesn't mean that anything not listed is excluded, right? Of course this provision still sets the stage for conflicts between gender identity and sex, regardless of the meaningless second subsection about no conflicts of rights.
What's truly puzzling though is how the wording in the proposal protects reproductive freedom. What does it even mean that you can't discriminate "because of [...] reproductive healthcare and autonomy"? An anti-abortion law would not discriminate; it would apply to everyone regardless of sex, however it's defined. You can bet that legislators would not use the word "woman" or "female" or even "pregnant" anywhere in such a law.
It's hard to believe that such a messily worded proposal will soon be enshrined in the NY constitution.
That's true. It says "including" and doesn't say "excluding gametes and chromosomes." Who knows what any of it means? I guess it will be up to judges to interpret to some extent.
This is likely of little use, but ordinarily in law, “including” is shorthand for “including but not limited to,” in other words, while some things are listed as included, there is a sort of implied “etc.” The problem I see is that, since self-ID is specifically included within the rubric of sex, then men who declare themselves as women will be considered legally to be women, so the understanding of sex as biological sex goes right out the window. Lisa makes the excellent point that this all will likely be up to the judges. It is definitely a litigator’s paradise, while for the rest of us, it is hell.
Thank you--this is off of people's radar because of the national election--I hope people hear you!
I think of "complicate" as "making more involved/difficult than it has to be"--the dictionary also says "more confusing"--is there another word you can use, sometimes? I worry it is getting in the way of your important messages...I see that you mean it in contrast to making things too simple, simpler than they are, but I worry that isn't want people hear. that they hear you want to make it messier than it is, as that is one connotation.
There must be other words...? Disentangle? Focus more clearly on? Unwind? The idea is to pull apart things that have been inappropriately thrown together, perhaps?
Voted straight D in NY this week, but voted against Prop1. Horribly written Prop. Creates more potential conflicts in legal proceedings. Especially in sex - gender.
How to break through the left/right divide, it is bewildering question to many of us who have gender ideology concerns. We know that mainstream media is a prime culprit in censorship and false framing of our concerns.
In "The Terf Report" with Kara Dansky on October 29th, she mentions a podcast called "political Gabfest" The lefty commentators (some of them) are astounded by "anti-trans" ads. The commentators don't think the trans issue is an issue with voters. Certainly it could not possibly be an issue with left-leaning voters.
Ty Lisa.. Once again the Lehrer show's attempt at equality misses the subtleties of legal issues swept in under the guise of such noble quests.. lol As soon as it's called out as a belief, I'm surprised they didn't immediately disconnect. The screener doesn't need to know.. lol
This level of political dysfunction & disregard for citizen education & involvement is ethically & morally wrong. The potential human damage esp to women is potentially massive. This is a nice example of bottom barrel politics.
Yeah, the synonym aspect creates problems on both sides. Sex and gender are two different things. Being 69, I've seen the evolution of the clash. As a biologist, definitely fully versed in what sex means from a biological standpoint. And I still think of women as adult females, men as adult males, boys as immature males, and girls as immature females.
Have to admit I've only paid much attention to this gender biz until the last couple of years. Gender, while historically a synonym with sex has taken on additional meaning that is not strictly linked to sex classification, but rather psychological elements that are driven in part by social expectations and norms. While most people will identify as the gender that is typically associated with their sex (in most cases people don't even have to think about this much), there is some variation.
This expansion of consideration of the meaning of gender leads to two extreme positions:
- Sex and gender are the same thing. Full stop, no question
- Sex is a social construct. It's a spectrum. Gender is a social construct. It's fluid. You can be whatever sex and gender you want to be.
Neither seems capable of resolving current issues around this topic. Actually having a couple of new words would I think be useful. Actually 3. These would be 3 gender markers: TM (transman) TW, (transwoman) and NB (Non binary) that would be used in addition to Man and woman. There would also be 2 sex markers, male and female. Both sets of markers would be used on identification documents (driver license for instance) or when registering for a service that is important to know sex (like medical care). I don't know why any TRAs would object to this, as none of us walk around displaying our Dls. And for everyone else, so what if some docs have to be changed.
As far as sex segregated spaces, all for that. But for progressives that object and want to come down on the side of gender, push for accommodation for all (like a 3rd set of bathrooms in addition to male and female). Women's shelter? If we had the additional gender markers, clear cut, and TRAs could actually do something useful with their money and create transwomen shelters if necessary. Prisons? Have segregated wings based on the 5 gender markers suggested. Sports? Make them explicitly sex segregated, ie male and female for competitive sports. What's done in recreational leagues or groups is up to them.
BYW, while I voted straight D in NY, I voted against Prop1. I read it beforehand, and found its overall wording ridiculous. Biggest thing was the sex-gender issue, but there were some other aspects as well.
Thanks for hanging in, Lisa. I voted against Prop 1 but everyone I talk to has been persuaded that it’s a great and necessary anti- discrimination measure. WNYC is so biased on this topic. But, we persist!
The vast majority of people today have no idea what’s going on. Thank you for continuing to fight this fight for truth and justice, and writing about it so we can share in our own efforts to educate people about what’s happening under their noses.
Lisa: I can’t thank you enough for your dedication and hard work trying to pry discussion of Prop 1, and all the issues that concern us here, out of the cold, dead hands of partisanship.
Earlier this week, we had lunch with four friends we haven’t seen in a while, all Democrats and all older lesbians. They are all good, decent people. Two of them are lawyers, and all are university educated. We have tried in the past to offer information on the gender identity issue, but while they listened, it did not stick. We’d hoped to try again at lunch at least to explain some of the legal problems in Prop 1. Unfortunately, all four had already voted—and proudly—for Prop 1. Here, if it is of use to anyone else, is what we would have tried to explain (though I doubt we would have got very far, as they come from a place of zero accurate information on the entire topic, let alone Prop 1).
Liz Kreuger and others who are saying what she did on the Brian Lehrer show are in error. There are at least two important differences between existing state law (the Human Rights Law) and Prop 1.
First: unlike the existing Human Rights Law, Prop 1 specifically redefines sex to include “gender identity” and “gender expression,” rather than, as the existing law does, to list those categories alongside “sex.” The Human Rights Law thus at least allows for judicial assessments based on a conflict of rights (between sex and gender identity/expression). In contrast, Prop 1 will allow men who self-identify as women to be categorized as women for all purposes, making it impossible to even make a claim that women have a right to single-sex spaces under any circumstances.
Second: The Human Rights Law contains language that specifically allows for single-sex spaces under certain circumstances, as follows: “Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent the barring of any person, because of the sex of such person, from places of public accommodation, resort or amusement if the division grants an exemption based on bona fide considerations of public policy; nor shall this subdivision apply to the rental of rooms in a housing accommodation which restricts such rental to individuals of one sex.” As Prop 1 will override any state law provisions in conflict with the constitutional provision, this single-sex-protective language, weak though it is, will become dead-letter.
As a result, unlike the existing Human Rights Law, Prop 1 will remove any right at all for women to challenge the right of men who self-identify as women to play on women’s sports teams, be housed in women’s prisons and dormitories, and use women-only domestic violence and rape crisis shelters, public changing rooms, and public toilets. In addition, as these men will be considered women for all purposes under law, women will have no right to object to their presence in single-sex spaces, thus rendering laws against indecent exposure, voyeurism, and the like moot.
Also, to the extent any law or regulation already contains problematic language like that Kreuger described, it can be changed far more easily than the state constitution. Once Prop 1 goes into the constitution, we will never get it out—and I fear strongly that is where we are headed in New York.
If this is of any use to anyone, I've just written to Hochul and Gillibrand specifically on the issue of Prop 1. Here is the text I used, if anyone else wants to write their electeds yet once again:
Dear ___________: I am a lifelong Democrat. I am writing because I, along with many other Democratic women, have grave concerns about Prop 1, and our concerns are not being heard. In consequence, we are now on the brink of passing a constitutional amendment which is poorly drafted, will be a litigator's paradise, and, by codifying self-ID within the definition of "sex," has the potential to severely erode long-fought for rights and safe spaces for women and girls.
Specifically, unlike what Liz Kreuger and others have stated, it does not merely codify what is already in the Human Rights Law in at least two important respects:
First: unlike the existing Human Rights Law, Prop 1 specifically redefines sex to include “gender identity” and “gender expression,” rather than, as the existing law does, to list those categories alongside “sex.” The Human Rights Law thus at least allows for judicial assessments based on a conflict of rights (between sex and gender identity/expression). In contrast, Prop 1 will allow men who self-identify as women to be categorized as women for all purposes, making it impossible to even make a claim that women have a right to single-sex spaces under any circumstances.
Second: The Human Rights Law contains language that specifically allows for single-sex spaces under certain circumstances, as follows: “Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent the barring of any person, because of the sex of such person, from places of public accommodation, resort or amusement if the division grants an exemption based on bona fide considerations of public policy; nor shall this subdivision apply to the rental of rooms in a housing accommodation which restricts such rental to individuals of one sex.” As Prop 1 will override any state law provisions in conflict with the constitutional provision, this single-sex-protective language will become dead-letter.
As a result, unlike the existing Human Rights Law, Prop 1 has the serious potential to remove any right at all for women to challenge the right of men who self-identify as women to play on women’s sports teams, be housed in women’s prisons and dormitories, and use women-only domestic violence and rape crisis shelters, public changing rooms, and public toilets. In addition, as these men will be considered women for all purposes under law, women will have no right to object to their presence in single-sex spaces, thus rendering laws against indecent exposure, voyeurism, and the like moot.
The Democrats—my party all my adult life—have made a serious mistake here. Please start listening to Democratic women who are concerned about what Prop 1 portends. We are not wild-eyed crazies. We want and need the Democrats to succeed and thrive, but that will not happen until and unless the Democrats truly grapple with the problems posed by Prop 1.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I believe constitutional challenges will occur if this passes. If passed, it means the state legislature will take it up. It's been advertised as "reproductive rights" because it says "pregnancy choices" as a protected class as well. NY state already has Roe in state law since 2019, thus, Prop 1 is force-teaming and institutional capture as exactly outlined in the infamous Yogiakarta Principles. I don't want to be the test case, but I can imagine being sued for naming my ex-husband, whom I experienced as a man for nearly 20 years, rather than saying the PC "former spouse" or the woke "ex-wife." There are many, many first amendment violations in Proposal 1.
Super helpful, Thx.
The conflation of gay with trans and access to abortion with access to GAC have turned out to be genius -- or lucky dart throws -- on the part of Trans Activists. And both are alarming to me. How do we break through? Lisa, I think it is useful you pressed them; I imagine you felt angry and defeated in the moment and maybe as you were writing? Don't stop. And keep letting us know. You are not alone and you help me keep on.
Yes, I think it's clear I'm frustrated. And sad. And scared that reality won't win.
Yes.
Every opportunity I have to state “There is no ‘LGBT community’; I have as much in common (as a gay woman) with people who suffer from ‘gender dysphoria’ as heterosexual people— which happens to be nothing,”
Me too.
Lisa, I might be able to give you some hope here, at least for the medium term. Bad laws, even constitutional provisions, can be walked back if their unintended consequences become apparent to enough people. We have very recent experience with that here in Oregon. Measure 110, which enshrined in state law another progressive priority, in this case decriminalizing hard drugs, easily passed here in 2020 (and I voted for it!). This corresponded with an explosion in visible drug use and overdoses here, and public opinion turned on it so fast that our very progressive legislature and governor have already rolled back significant parts of it.
My point being, if Prop 1 passes in New York it may well sit there in your constitution for a very long time. But if enough people directly experience negative consequences from it (and having direct negative experiences with things like bathrooms or sports seems to be one way people change their minds on this), it's not hard to imagine some future clarifying legislation rendering the worst parts of it moot. Maybe very quickly, as we experienced here in Oregon.
Unfortunately it usually takes a lot of people getting hurt to get to that point, which is why its so important to try to get those competing views out of the partisan media bubbles before that happens.
I agree, but hence Lisa’s frustration with not allowing voters to become genuinely educated about the substance, and likely consequences of this proposed legislation.
Thanks for this. Some excellent insights. I have been thinking, too, that as more people experience the negative effects of the proposal, the tide could change, maybe even rapidly. Though, as you say, the horror is thinking of the number of people harmed until that happens.
This issue has made me question a lot of what I read these days. I sure hope sanity returns soon. I listened to the Memory Hole podcast the other day and it really made me think about all the other weird trends our society has gone through. I don’t think it’s really possible to innoculate ourselves against untruths and scams. We’re just too guided by feelings. We do have to try though. Thank you, Lisa.
“It’s institutionalizing a divorce from reality.”
Brilliant.
In my polling place 2 hours' drive north of NYC, I spoke with voters blocks from the building, who were asking about places to park--early voting was unusually crowded. I asked them about voting on Proposal 1, and all were vehement about voting NO. In a discussion zoom call at protectkidsNY.org, a pediatrician in Manhattan said she's desperately worried about her young patients coming in with requests for wrong sex hormones. Other participants said, great you're a doctor, speak out. Her reply was that she has no voice, as the hospital she's affiliated with has a big "gender" center and performs the operations. This is likely Mount Sinai. Other participants said they talk to their neighbors about Title IX and preserving girls sports, but they "avoid the trans issue because its so controversial and toxic." This is completely illogical because "gender" is exactly why boys are inserting themselves into the girls' teams and locker rooms. Michelle Hinchey a Dem incumbent State Senator, refused to discuss any "gender" issues in her debates with her Republican opponent, Patrick Sheehy. Her staffers were just like the WNYC peeps when I contacted her last time she was elected, to warn about the growing ranks of detransitioners; there's a big malpractice case by a female regretter in Rhinebeck.
I don't have any idea how that race will go, because I see GOP voters coming out of the woodwork here. I see Latinos and African-Americans voting GOP out of a desire to put brakes on school programs "trans-ing" their grandsons and granddaughters. I had a wonderful hour-long chat with Sheehy's young female campaign worker. A graduate of Wellesley about 8 years ago, she related how this women's college suddenly had a bunch of coeds claiming to be male. She noted that most of them drifted downward into much worse mental health as they continued on testosterone and obsessed about whether to have their breasts surgically removed. She finds her "non-binary" friends to be utterly narcissistic and annoying.
The fact that Proposal 1 has "gender expression" as well as "gender identity" is particularly illogical. This opens up anyone to a civil rights lawsuit who can't recall which pronouns a "gender fluid" individual is, and to teachers who can't recall what student ZeeZer is this week.
Thanks for this fascinating report about what is happening in and around the Hudson Valley, where we lived for 15 years. I did not know there was a detrans lawsuit coming out of Rhinebeck, wow. If you have anything more on that, do say, as I would like to follow it. From what you describe, it seems possible this misguided strategy of pushing Prop 1 will backfire spectacularly in terms of who turns out to vote in NY—though a lot will depend on what happens in NYC, as its voter complement is so large, and voter turnout here has been huge.
Well, in response to my local papers, and I mean papers on sidewalks, held by pebbles, I got a police visit. And these fuckers trespassed my property "looking for lost dog" so letters. I was visited by Police! an officer said, "This is 2024!"
There's something so sexist about all this. The idea that saying you're actually a girl instead of what you really are, a biological boy, signals to people that you're all of a sudden bestowed with all this purity and wisdom and honesty and truth BECAUSE YOU NOW SAY YOU'RE FEMALE.
Like, a real woman would never lie, right? You know, like a MAN would? Therefore she must really be a woman! Hoorah, she's one of us now!
It's infuriating but not surprising that Brian completely ignored your views on this. I will say though that I am confused by the wording of the proposal. It isn't clear to me that the phrase "sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, [etc.]" excludes biological sex. "Including" doesn't mean that anything not listed is excluded, right? Of course this provision still sets the stage for conflicts between gender identity and sex, regardless of the meaningless second subsection about no conflicts of rights.
What's truly puzzling though is how the wording in the proposal protects reproductive freedom. What does it even mean that you can't discriminate "because of [...] reproductive healthcare and autonomy"? An anti-abortion law would not discriminate; it would apply to everyone regardless of sex, however it's defined. You can bet that legislators would not use the word "woman" or "female" or even "pregnant" anywhere in such a law.
It's hard to believe that such a messily worded proposal will soon be enshrined in the NY constitution.
That's true. It says "including" and doesn't say "excluding gametes and chromosomes." Who knows what any of it means? I guess it will be up to judges to interpret to some extent.
This is likely of little use, but ordinarily in law, “including” is shorthand for “including but not limited to,” in other words, while some things are listed as included, there is a sort of implied “etc.” The problem I see is that, since self-ID is specifically included within the rubric of sex, then men who declare themselves as women will be considered legally to be women, so the understanding of sex as biological sex goes right out the window. Lisa makes the excellent point that this all will likely be up to the judges. It is definitely a litigator’s paradise, while for the rest of us, it is hell.
Thank you--this is off of people's radar because of the national election--I hope people hear you!
I think of "complicate" as "making more involved/difficult than it has to be"--the dictionary also says "more confusing"--is there another word you can use, sometimes? I worry it is getting in the way of your important messages...I see that you mean it in contrast to making things too simple, simpler than they are, but I worry that isn't want people hear. that they hear you want to make it messier than it is, as that is one connotation.
There must be other words...? Disentangle? Focus more clearly on? Unwind? The idea is to pull apart things that have been inappropriately thrown together, perhaps?
Thank you for your work!
Unpack?
Voted straight D in NY this week, but voted against Prop1. Horribly written Prop. Creates more potential conflicts in legal proceedings. Especially in sex - gender.
Thank you for continuing to fight, Lisa.
How to break through the left/right divide, it is bewildering question to many of us who have gender ideology concerns. We know that mainstream media is a prime culprit in censorship and false framing of our concerns.
In "The Terf Report" with Kara Dansky on October 29th, she mentions a podcast called "political Gabfest" The lefty commentators (some of them) are astounded by "anti-trans" ads. The commentators don't think the trans issue is an issue with voters. Certainly it could not possibly be an issue with left-leaning voters.
“The commentators don't think the trans issue is an issue with voters.” 💯💯💯 the willful blindness is astounding, isn’t it?
Ty Lisa.. Once again the Lehrer show's attempt at equality misses the subtleties of legal issues swept in under the guise of such noble quests.. lol As soon as it's called out as a belief, I'm surprised they didn't immediately disconnect. The screener doesn't need to know.. lol
This level of political dysfunction & disregard for citizen education & involvement is ethically & morally wrong. The potential human damage esp to women is potentially massive. This is a nice example of bottom barrel politics.
This isn't both sides & this is just as silly, bizarre as the other side.
Yeah, the synonym aspect creates problems on both sides. Sex and gender are two different things. Being 69, I've seen the evolution of the clash. As a biologist, definitely fully versed in what sex means from a biological standpoint. And I still think of women as adult females, men as adult males, boys as immature males, and girls as immature females.
Have to admit I've only paid much attention to this gender biz until the last couple of years. Gender, while historically a synonym with sex has taken on additional meaning that is not strictly linked to sex classification, but rather psychological elements that are driven in part by social expectations and norms. While most people will identify as the gender that is typically associated with their sex (in most cases people don't even have to think about this much), there is some variation.
This expansion of consideration of the meaning of gender leads to two extreme positions:
- Sex and gender are the same thing. Full stop, no question
- Sex is a social construct. It's a spectrum. Gender is a social construct. It's fluid. You can be whatever sex and gender you want to be.
Neither seems capable of resolving current issues around this topic. Actually having a couple of new words would I think be useful. Actually 3. These would be 3 gender markers: TM (transman) TW, (transwoman) and NB (Non binary) that would be used in addition to Man and woman. There would also be 2 sex markers, male and female. Both sets of markers would be used on identification documents (driver license for instance) or when registering for a service that is important to know sex (like medical care). I don't know why any TRAs would object to this, as none of us walk around displaying our Dls. And for everyone else, so what if some docs have to be changed.
As far as sex segregated spaces, all for that. But for progressives that object and want to come down on the side of gender, push for accommodation for all (like a 3rd set of bathrooms in addition to male and female). Women's shelter? If we had the additional gender markers, clear cut, and TRAs could actually do something useful with their money and create transwomen shelters if necessary. Prisons? Have segregated wings based on the 5 gender markers suggested. Sports? Make them explicitly sex segregated, ie male and female for competitive sports. What's done in recreational leagues or groups is up to them.
BYW, while I voted straight D in NY, I voted against Prop1. I read it beforehand, and found its overall wording ridiculous. Biggest thing was the sex-gender issue, but there were some other aspects as well.
Thanks for hanging in, Lisa. I voted against Prop 1 but everyone I talk to has been persuaded that it’s a great and necessary anti- discrimination measure. WNYC is so biased on this topic. But, we persist!