Ta-Nahesi Coates’s father is a former Black Panther who runs a Black Nationalist publishing house that issued a new edition of a book called “the Jewish Onslaught” right around the time that his son published the Message.
Zohrab Mamdani’s father is a post colonial scholar at Columbia so committed to Fanonist politics that he wrote sympathetically about Uganda’s ethnic cleansing of Indians in spite of the fact that himself was ethnically cleansed. (He did note that the expulsion was an economic catastrophe for Uganda.)
Both men raised sons to seek and gain power in mainstream US institutions in order to break the old hegemonies and institute new ones.
They have both done well in their ambitions.
Mamdani’s effortless co-optation of the abundance crowd, shows an evolution in strategy and tactics that may or may not in the long one prove to be as thorough going as the revision of communist, practice successfully undertaken by the CCP
We brainwashed hundreds of thousands of unstable young people to believe that chemically castrating and dismembering themselves is their only way to become their true selves and avoid suicide and that anyone preventing them from inflicting the ultimate sexual violence on themselves is a Nazi who wants to kill the children he’s protecting from the ultimate sexual violence. Of course they will threaten and commit violence.
Colorado just passed a law forcing every private insurer in the state to cover the cost of cheek implants, lip augmentation, nose jobs, and breast implants (among other elective cosmetic procedures) for one group of legally privileged people -- men who claim to be women and women who claim to be men
It's literally against the law in Colorado not to force every insurance customer to bear the cost of the elective castration or nose job of any man who claims to be a woman
No. A man gets breast implants covered by insurance because for him it is lifesaving and medically necessary care. A woman getting breast implants would be merely cosmetic.
All the hard won lessons of decades were thrown in the trash when the failed nostrums of the 1970's were rebranded by a new generation of activists, yielding the same results they did the first time around because deranged and dysfunctional ideas inexorably generate failure.
A new layer of dysfunction and delusion was, however, added to the old manias -- transgenderism.
On SNL, it's a joke. In reality, the sorority sisters failed in their federal lawsuit and the Washington Post wrote a weepy feature story about the man who joined the sorority and prevailed in federal court despite claims that he had a visible erection while staring at his sorority sisters portraying him as the world's most vulnerable victim
This is the core of the problem that to my knowledge remains totally unaddressed. Essentially nothing that is done to Harvard or the Ivies will be in the least bit availing in a decade unless even more is done to the Ed schools.
When men say they are women, they are still men and should be treated by the law as what they are rather than what they claim to be. The basic postulate of trans ideology -- that men can become women by saying they are women and that women can become men by saying they are men -- is an untrue claim and cannot serve as the basis of any legal recognition or public policy.
Your legal documents must all list your sex, not your claim to be a different one. Your access to sex segregated facilities is determined by your sex, not by your claim to be a different one. Whatever inconveniences flow from a person's attempt to falsify their sex is not a matter for any public institution to solve. No one has a duty to help anyone else to falsify their sex. No institution has a duty to help anyone else to falsify their sex.
There is no way to force anyone to affirm anyone else's gender identity without destroying another person's right of free speech and free conscience. The claims of transgenderism are implacably imposed to the basic postulates of a liberal, pluralistic society in which everyone has a right to belief and a corollary right to unbelief that no one may legitimately infringe.
I can't prevent you from making the untrue claim that you are the opposite sex from the sex you are in a liberal, pluralistic society. And you cannot prevent me from making the true claim that you are the sex that you are in a liberal, pluralistic society. The same rights that allow you to try to falsify your sex allow me to reject your falsification of your sex.
The entire notion of recognizing trans identity in law is intrinsically a denial of a right that no one can take away from me. It is an inherently illegitimate act for a state to undertake.
He's trying to say "we can do whatever we want, we can ban trans from sports and locker room, but keep requiring everyone to affirm other people's trans identities because there is no real underlying essence, just whatever you decide is socially pragmatic."