In a few years the bar moved from saying that children weren’t undergoing irreversible procedures, to arguing in The New Yorker that children should get to sterilize themselves for life without regard to the “arbitrary historical boundaries of childhood.”
Among those of us with left-of-center political ideals, it’s only radical feminists who will now stand up and say that it’s wrong to sterilize children because they’re different, or unhappy. It’s only conservatives who will platform us to say it.
Where are the other organizations that claim to represent lesbian and bisexual women, saying that these girls don’t need mastectomies? Where are the gay men’s groups standing up for the wholeness of these boys? Why are they abandoning their responsibilities?
Where are the groups for those on the autism spectrum, standing up to say that it’s completely typical for autistic young people to have social fit difficulties and be unhappy about this, as well as to obsessively perseverate on special interests?
Why are news outlets who’ve made their bones reporting on previous medical scandals ignoring the sterilization of these children? Whether they’re LGB, autistic, or caught up in social contagions because they self-diagnosed from a YouTube overdose in a vulnerable moment?
Schools generally do not allow asthmatic minors to carry and self-administer their own inhalers, and we’re all accepting this because of extreme concern about illicit drug use or overdose.
There have been serious harms because of such strict policies, from time to time.
Same kids can effectively diagnose themselves with dysphoria, then prescribe themselves puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and cosmetic removal of primary or secondary sex characteristics, under an affirmation-only model of gender identity “inclusion.”
If a teacher, counselor, or other professional objects to this “need” for sterilization—as self-diagnosed by an actual child—they’ll likely be fired. If a parent or guardian objects, they may be investigated for abuse or neglect, or lose custody, depending on the jurisdiction.
Feminists have been treated for years *as if* our real position was that men and boys ought to be harmed. Here comes the gender identity movement, and they turn the castration of boys into some kind of family entertainment celebration, but it’s fine!
Why has it been 2 years since a boy was televised, gladly cutting into a representation of male genitals, celebrating his own, planned castration, & instead of ending it, now the media is airing the idea that more & younger kids should get to do the same?
Where has everyone’s common sense gone? Why does this seem to trouble no one’s conscience, who’s gone over to uncritically saying everything the gender identity movement demands of them?
But hey, we’re just women! Actual women are so tiresome, right?
Be sure to replace us with better ones, more to everyone’s liking, who are just fine with sterilizing so many kids and won’t make a peep as long as you tell them that they’re pretty & subscribe to their OnlyFans.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This Department of Education memo, from the Office for Civil Rights, is a well-reasoned rejoinder to the Bostock decision, taking the justices at their word and protecting sex-based Title IX rights. www2.ed.gov/about/offices/…
“Title IX, for example, contains numerous exceptions authorizing or allowing sex-separate activities and intimate facilities to be provided separately on the basis of biological sex or for members of each biological sex.”
“[The] Department’s longstanding construction of the term “sex” in Title IX to mean biological sex, male or female, is the only construction consistent with the ordinary public meaning of “sex” at the time of Title IX’s enactment.”
There are legitimate worries about where a (now) politically expedient set of actions, regarding a longstanding problem, is going to end. And there are many reasons to think that the people charged with making decisions about this are going to overreach, as they have done before.
Here’s how the gender identity influence game works. If you don’t agree that men can be women if they say so, the ACLU will sue you, and monster you as a threat to “all women.” By which they also mean men.
All of these “women’s rights groups,” who’ve signed on to ACLU’s war on women’s rights, including sports, would be turned on and destroyed by ‘progressive’ MRAs like the ACLU crowd. They’d be vilified to donors, politicians, and the public, as violent, evil bigots.
In the UK, the original Gender Recognition Act (GRA) set aside a legal class for people who were diagnosed as transsexual and wanted to generally be seen as the opposite sex. MPs foresaw many potential problems with this ...
... but the answer in every case was that there were so few of these people that problems would be rare if they happened at all. Getting a gender recognition certificate also did not prevent necessary exemptions for single-sex spaces ...
... so the idea was that it wouldn’t be a problem anywhere that mattered. That was fine for so long, that when the Women and Equalities Committee looked to revise the law in 2015, they didn’t bother consulting with any feminists or women’s groups. ...
Some feminists have refused to accept, and therefore fully address the implications of, the systematic ostracism of anyone who shares our ideas from the power structures of left leaning political parties. Such a thorough un-personning and deplatforming wasn’t an accident.
It doesn’t matter what our own political ideas mark us as on an independent, objective political spectrum scale.
What matters is that the people who hold physical possession of the movements we care about, and may have helped build, have put us in their “Nazi” box.
No one will be heard whom the people in possession of the material assets, and social capital, of these movements, have marked as untouchable in this way. The woke staffers (they will all be woke) will likely never let your criticism reach the Great Man, or, now, the Great Woman.
Arguments were heard in this case Thursday: Why might a case involving a Christian conservative male professor matter to women & girls generally? Everyone has the right to discuss these issues, but women and girls have the most personal & immediate need.
From our brief, re: significance of claims made under the auspices of “gender identity,” “WoLF is particularly concerned that it deprives women who appear before the court of the ability to speak accurately about the issues they face as a sex-class.” static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea…
“WoLF maintains that preserving and advancing women’s rights, liberties, and other interests necessitates a recognition of sex, consistent with the longstanding meaning of that term ...” static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea…