I wonder when the women's groups defending single sex sports will take up the cause of natal females who were duped into getting double mastectomies and took testosterone, damaging their bodies to the point where serious sports are not an option? I also wonder when trans widows, women whose husbands often made secret accounts to hide their profligate spending? Children are at risk in both cases. This belief that there is "true trans" and there's a small band of "brave and stunning" individuals who are actually benefitted by entree into a new narcissist, superior class of humans, defies logic and is in fact the stumbling block the medical profession has placed in front of those blind to the malpractices of "affirmative care." If there was scientific evidence, the "no debate" rules would be abandoned. Those of use who divorced men who went down the rabbit hole know that they just are not happy in the long term. They are crossdressing gladiators, working out their childhood traumas by browbeating the whole of society with their glorified body dissociation. If the lives of trans widows were actually reported on, the high frequency of violence these dudes commit would come to the surface. As I collect the only known data on trans widows who left these marriages, the dereliction of the medical profession becomes more and more clear.
This is so distressing in so many ways. RFK Jr.'s support is almost enough to make me reconsider my own stance -- he is so far out in conspiracy-theory-land that he's not the kind of supporter anyone should want, and it makes me uneasy to find myself agreeing with him about anything. But apart from that, like so many other life-long progressive Democrats I am experiencing real anguish over my party's position on these issues. I will not, CAN not, ever vote for Republican candidates. On every other issue, straight down the line, I consider Republican positions abominable in every way, destructive of everything I believe in and care about, and absolutely disastrous when put into action -- and that's not even getting into the question of the moral cesspool that most Republicans have dived into with their blind and unquestioning support of anything Trump says or does. I CANNOT support Republican candidates. But it is becoming more and more difficult for me to overlook the Democrats' position on the whole trans medicalization madness. I feel increasingly alienated and as though I have no political home any more.
I am with you, totally. The situation is disastrously bad. As individuals, our voices are small, and we have as yet no overarching organizational structure through which to make our voices heard collectively (though I am heartened by, and by no means wish to diminish, the brilliant efforts of ICONS, PITT Parents, WDI, and so many other groups). I do what I can to engage friends and neighbors who are willing to open their ears and minds and weigh in with my representatives (all D) whenever I see something a rep has said or done with which I disagree. These efforts feel tiny, but I can only hope that if as many of us can do these two things, many hands make lighter work.
I love that you expanded this to the “two things” of reaching out to politicians AND the people closest to us. Opening and keeping open the discussion with friends, family (where you can), neighbors, etc feels really important. Send articles, encourage people to read/listen/watch. Thanks for the reminder.
Many thanks to Lisa for lifting up this story. Really well done. I will never forget the first time I listened to Kim Jones talk about this--at that point, I knew little about these issues. What she and her daughter experienced was completely unfair. I am a progressive Democrat, and it is from that vantage point that I want to applaud Lisa, also, for noting that “perhaps if more constituents communicated to their representatives that they wanted them to take a stand, those politicians would feel empowered to do so.” I also urge those of us who are Democrats to contact all our Democratic representatives to voice our concerns and objections whenever the opportunity presents itself. Even when, and perhaps particularly when, they are not responsive, they need to hear from us that we are paying attention and to register when we disagree and why.
Thank you, Susan - well put. It’s frustrating when they don’t reply, or send a boilerplate (one sent me their record on gay rights, missing the point), but, I agree, we have to keep speaking up.
Colin Wright recently published an article by Prof Callie Burt, "The US Equality Act Must Be Stopped", which lays out in detail the reasons every woman should oppose the pending bill as written. It took some effort to get a link that worked. I hope this saves fellow readers some time:
<<Although laudable in its aims, the Equality Act is objectionable in form. The Act extends non-discrimination protections to LGBTQ individuals not by creating new protected classes but by redefining sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation, which is not only terminologically imprecise but also creates a clash between sex-based and gender identity-based rights. By defining gender identity as something that exists to be protected “regardless of sex,” the act undermines sex-based provisions, replacing them with provisions based on gender self-identification.>>
I'm going to write my Congressman to ask him to oppose the act unless it is substantially revised (1) to protect women in legitimately women-only spaces and (2) remove the dangerous conflation of trans with lesbian and gay.
You can find your Representative and their website by your zip code here:
My Congressman is hardcore Progressive, so I'm not expecting much of a favorable response. All the loudest of the voices formerly advancing gay and lesbian equality are now wholly onboard with the most radical version of the trans ideology.
Ah, too bad, but I have bookmarked both, as you never know when an archived version might appear. This type of thing is really helpful to help each of us frame the arguments that need to be made, so thank you for alerting us!
Four years ago on a well known progressive forum (from which I was banned) many people aired the same view, that ultimately it would be very destructive for democrats to not give 100% support to women on their own terms. The direction is slowly, slowly turning to women, on their own terms.
Australia's Labor (centre-left) Prime Minister has stated that a woman is an adult female and that "boys should play with boys and girls should play with girls". Others in his party, however, have succumbed to gender orthodoxy.
Well, I like his definition of a woman. But I would hate to see a wide acceptance of his idea that boys and girls can't play together. That's orthodoxy of another kind, and every bit as rigid as the "gender orthodoxy" we're all concerned about.
Australia's Labor (centre-left) Prime Minister has stated that a woman is an adult female and that "boys should play with boys and girls should play with girls". Others in his party, however, have succumbed to gender orthodoxy.
I wonder when the women's groups defending single sex sports will take up the cause of natal females who were duped into getting double mastectomies and took testosterone, damaging their bodies to the point where serious sports are not an option? I also wonder when trans widows, women whose husbands often made secret accounts to hide their profligate spending? Children are at risk in both cases. This belief that there is "true trans" and there's a small band of "brave and stunning" individuals who are actually benefitted by entree into a new narcissist, superior class of humans, defies logic and is in fact the stumbling block the medical profession has placed in front of those blind to the malpractices of "affirmative care." If there was scientific evidence, the "no debate" rules would be abandoned. Those of use who divorced men who went down the rabbit hole know that they just are not happy in the long term. They are crossdressing gladiators, working out their childhood traumas by browbeating the whole of society with their glorified body dissociation. If the lives of trans widows were actually reported on, the high frequency of violence these dudes commit would come to the surface. As I collect the only known data on trans widows who left these marriages, the dereliction of the medical profession becomes more and more clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RIPO4EtJG8&t=23s
This is so distressing in so many ways. RFK Jr.'s support is almost enough to make me reconsider my own stance -- he is so far out in conspiracy-theory-land that he's not the kind of supporter anyone should want, and it makes me uneasy to find myself agreeing with him about anything. But apart from that, like so many other life-long progressive Democrats I am experiencing real anguish over my party's position on these issues. I will not, CAN not, ever vote for Republican candidates. On every other issue, straight down the line, I consider Republican positions abominable in every way, destructive of everything I believe in and care about, and absolutely disastrous when put into action -- and that's not even getting into the question of the moral cesspool that most Republicans have dived into with their blind and unquestioning support of anything Trump says or does. I CANNOT support Republican candidates. But it is becoming more and more difficult for me to overlook the Democrats' position on the whole trans medicalization madness. I feel increasingly alienated and as though I have no political home any more.
I am with you, totally. The situation is disastrously bad. As individuals, our voices are small, and we have as yet no overarching organizational structure through which to make our voices heard collectively (though I am heartened by, and by no means wish to diminish, the brilliant efforts of ICONS, PITT Parents, WDI, and so many other groups). I do what I can to engage friends and neighbors who are willing to open their ears and minds and weigh in with my representatives (all D) whenever I see something a rep has said or done with which I disagree. These efforts feel tiny, but I can only hope that if as many of us can do these two things, many hands make lighter work.
I love that you expanded this to the “two things” of reaching out to politicians AND the people closest to us. Opening and keeping open the discussion with friends, family (where you can), neighbors, etc feels really important. Send articles, encourage people to read/listen/watch. Thanks for the reminder.
Many thanks to Lisa for lifting up this story. Really well done. I will never forget the first time I listened to Kim Jones talk about this--at that point, I knew little about these issues. What she and her daughter experienced was completely unfair. I am a progressive Democrat, and it is from that vantage point that I want to applaud Lisa, also, for noting that “perhaps if more constituents communicated to their representatives that they wanted them to take a stand, those politicians would feel empowered to do so.” I also urge those of us who are Democrats to contact all our Democratic representatives to voice our concerns and objections whenever the opportunity presents itself. Even when, and perhaps particularly when, they are not responsive, they need to hear from us that we are paying attention and to register when we disagree and why.
Thank you, Susan - well put. It’s frustrating when they don’t reply, or send a boilerplate (one sent me their record on gay rights, missing the point), but, I agree, we have to keep speaking up.
Colin Wright recently published an article by Prof Callie Burt, "The US Equality Act Must Be Stopped", which lays out in detail the reasons every woman should oppose the pending bill as written. It took some effort to get a link that worked. I hope this saves fellow readers some time:
https://open.substack.com/pub/colinwright/p/the-us-equality-act-must-be-stopped?r=7x0yn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I also found a similar article by Dr Burt, but as with many scholarly journals, it was behind the paywall except for the abstract:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1557085120918667?journalCode=fcxa
From the abstract:
<<Although laudable in its aims, the Equality Act is objectionable in form. The Act extends non-discrimination protections to LGBTQ individuals not by creating new protected classes but by redefining sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation, which is not only terminologically imprecise but also creates a clash between sex-based and gender identity-based rights. By defining gender identity as something that exists to be protected “regardless of sex,” the act undermines sex-based provisions, replacing them with provisions based on gender self-identification.>>
I'm going to write my Congressman to ask him to oppose the act unless it is substantially revised (1) to protect women in legitimately women-only spaces and (2) remove the dangerous conflation of trans with lesbian and gay.
You can find your Representative and their website by your zip code here:
https://ziplook.house.gov/htbin/findrep_house
My Congressman is hardcore Progressive, so I'm not expecting much of a favorable response. All the loudest of the voices formerly advancing gay and lesbian equality are now wholly onboard with the most radical version of the trans ideology.
I am encountering a paywall on the Reality’s Last Stand article, also. Do you have a link that is open to the public?
Rats! I'm sorry. I poked around, and this one seemed to work. I guess it had my subscription ID , too.
Ah, too bad, but I have bookmarked both, as you never know when an archived version might appear. This type of thing is really helpful to help each of us frame the arguments that need to be made, so thank you for alerting us!
Four years ago on a well known progressive forum (from which I was banned) many people aired the same view, that ultimately it would be very destructive for democrats to not give 100% support to women on their own terms. The direction is slowly, slowly turning to women, on their own terms.
Where is everyone who fought for Title lX? Crickets...
Australia's Labor (centre-left) Prime Minister has stated that a woman is an adult female and that "boys should play with boys and girls should play with girls". Others in his party, however, have succumbed to gender orthodoxy.
Well, I like his definition of a woman. But I would hate to see a wide acceptance of his idea that boys and girls can't play together. That's orthodoxy of another kind, and every bit as rigid as the "gender orthodoxy" we're all concerned about.
Australia's Labor (centre-left) Prime Minister has stated that a woman is an adult female and that "boys should play with boys and girls should play with girls". Others in his party, however, have succumbed to gender orthodoxy.