My little write-up for the week became a big write-up, so I’ll send out headlines now and send the other in a bit. In the meantime, a legal case with the world’s greatest name is unfolding in Australia. Per the LGB Alliance Australia:
Lisa’s generosity shines through with this lovely remark: “Many millions of thanks to Alejandra Q for these headlines and summaries. What would we do without her?” I would add, “Many millions of thanks to you, too, Lisa. We would be much the poorer without your hard and good work.
These round-ups clearly take astounding amount of work and also demonstrate in a uniquely powerful way what a huge mess we are in.
I want to lift up a couple things, both of which I learned first from this round-up.
First, the item in the Catholic Weekly quoting a priest. I am deeply secular and suspect I would disagree with this priest on many things, yet I was quite moved by the priest’s compassionate words, including these:
“The priest explained that among people who declare themselves “trans,” he has always found in his pastoral experience that “there are deep wounds that have led to nonacceptance of their biological reality.”
[The priest] asks himself: “What truly heals wounds?” His response is clear: “Affection and security. True love. What was missing could be given to them. Without escapes or ideologies. Teaching through true human love what the unconditional love that God has for us is.”
Second, as a New Yorker, I was interested to learn of the “Vote No” initiative relating to the proposed “Equal Rights” Amendment that will be on our ballots this fall. I will be voting no, and here is why:
The amendment is being touted as protecting abortion rights—but these rights re already protected under state law. A critical problem with the proposed amendment (as is also the case with the proposed federal Equality Act) is the redefinition of “sex” to include “gender identity or expression,” which, in cases of conflicting rights, would almost assuredly mean that “gender identity or expression” would prevail over sex-based rights and protections. What makes this so dismaying is that the problem could have been avoided if “gender identity or expression” had been made a separate protected category, rather than redefining sex include it.
Below, FYI, is the text of the proposed NYS amendment:
Provides that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof; provides no person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed, religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.
I think that is a mischaracterization. The bill actually erases the abstract concept of gender and definitionally equates gender with sex, while reinforcing the binary definition of sex. This is important for legal reasons. Gender, until quite recently, was synonymous with sex in the eyes of the law. I think it's good that gender has subsequently been cleaved off of sex to define the stereotype rather than the physical reality. But for legal purposes, it's important to restrict judges from using the evolution of the word gender to twist the original meaning of legislation that uses the word "gender" into queer theory oriented legislation.
Lisa’s generosity shines through with this lovely remark: “Many millions of thanks to Alejandra Q for these headlines and summaries. What would we do without her?” I would add, “Many millions of thanks to you, too, Lisa. We would be much the poorer without your hard and good work.
These round-ups clearly take astounding amount of work and also demonstrate in a uniquely powerful way what a huge mess we are in.
I want to lift up a couple things, both of which I learned first from this round-up.
First, the item in the Catholic Weekly quoting a priest. I am deeply secular and suspect I would disagree with this priest on many things, yet I was quite moved by the priest’s compassionate words, including these:
“The priest explained that among people who declare themselves “trans,” he has always found in his pastoral experience that “there are deep wounds that have led to nonacceptance of their biological reality.”
[The priest] asks himself: “What truly heals wounds?” His response is clear: “Affection and security. True love. What was missing could be given to them. Without escapes or ideologies. Teaching through true human love what the unconditional love that God has for us is.”
Second, as a New Yorker, I was interested to learn of the “Vote No” initiative relating to the proposed “Equal Rights” Amendment that will be on our ballots this fall. I will be voting no, and here is why:
The amendment is being touted as protecting abortion rights—but these rights re already protected under state law. A critical problem with the proposed amendment (as is also the case with the proposed federal Equality Act) is the redefinition of “sex” to include “gender identity or expression,” which, in cases of conflicting rights, would almost assuredly mean that “gender identity or expression” would prevail over sex-based rights and protections. What makes this so dismaying is that the problem could have been avoided if “gender identity or expression” had been made a separate protected category, rather than redefining sex include it.
Below, FYI, is the text of the proposed NYS amendment:
Provides that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof; provides no person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed, religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.
I really like the summary of news around the world and in different states. It's so helpful to see what's going on all in one place.
I really do not know how someone can write something like the following and call himself (or herself) a journalist . . . or sane:
"the woman performed a dangerous self-surgery to remove her own testicles"
Got it from:
DOJ sues Utah, state corrections department for discriminating against transgender woman
BY BROOKE MIGDON - 04/02/24 (The Hill)
https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/4570957-doj-sues-utah-state-corrections-department-discrimination-transgender-woman/
https://archive.ph/oqqr5
Tickle vs Giggle. You really cannot make this stuff up.
Thank you for this extensive list. The NOW statement reads like a textbook Thought Terminating Cliche.
"the only two genders"
I think that is a mischaracterization. The bill actually erases the abstract concept of gender and definitionally equates gender with sex, while reinforcing the binary definition of sex. This is important for legal reasons. Gender, until quite recently, was synonymous with sex in the eyes of the law. I think it's good that gender has subsequently been cleaved off of sex to define the stereotype rather than the physical reality. But for legal purposes, it's important to restrict judges from using the evolution of the word gender to twist the original meaning of legislation that uses the word "gender" into queer theory oriented legislation.