The radical “Equality Act”
The Democrats are now bent on codifying at the federal level the so-called “Equality Act,” which if passed would do the following:
This bill would require Americans to consider gender identity and even biological sex a personal choice, not an objective fact. This is where this bill completely falls off the rails.
This will turn any recognition of the difference between biological sexes, or any preference for traditional sexual relationships or genders, or even the scientific definition of the two sexes, into potential “hate” crimes. This bill would:
Endanger women’s rights and put millions of women at risk for sexual assault;
Destroy women’s sports and harm men’s sports;
Put gender-confused children at extreme risk, with no alternate paths for them allowed besides cross-sex hormones and genital amputation;
Remove constitutional protections for religious beliefs and freedoms; and
Elevate LBGTQ rights and claims over religious citizens by mandating that an LGBTQ person’s claim wins by default in cases where there is a dispute between the two.
I haven’t read the bill; I’ve only read interpretations of what it would mean. But they tend to agree with the above list. In addition, the author of that article, who is gay, has this to say:
…[I]t would enshrine the gender identity agenda that is counter to gay rights.
For decades, we gays preached to the world that we were “born this way,” and that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual “is not a choice.” Lady Gaga’s famous “Born This Way” has been embraced as a global gay anthem. We did not challenge nature or the science of our biology, nor millennia of human history’s distinctions and separations of the two sexes.
Now, that’s turned on its head. For the gender-identity and trans-obsessed crowd, how you were born can now be “changed,” and everything regarding sex and gender is simply a “choice.”
There’s a long-standing altercation between trans activists and lesbians, in part because a great many biological women who identify as trans men are lesbians (or would be, except for the trans movement). This phenomenon reaches its zenith in Iran, of all places, where being gay is a crime but gender reassignment surgery is considered preferable and is performed on people who in other societies would identify as gay.
The Equality Act has passed the House.
Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York and Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida were two of eight GOP lawmakers who joined House Democrats to vote for the Equality Act during the last session of Congress, when the legislation was first passed in the chamber.
Stefanik on Friday pointed to the June Supreme Court ruling that federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender individuals in the workplace, and said the ruling “serves as an important protection against discrimination.”
“I believe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unlawful and wrong,” Stefanik said in a statement provided to CNN Friday. “While I voted for previous versions of this legislation before the Supreme Court ruling, I have long been concerned that this bill goes far beyond non-discrimination and eliminates the role of single gendered organizations and activities throughout our society.”She argued that the Equality Act would effectively eliminate federal civil rights laws meant to ensure women and girls have the same opportunities as men and boys — “eliminating single-sex sports and social groups that are critical for personal development and growth.”…
Diaz-Balart and Stefanik both committed to reintroducing the “Fairness for All Act” with GOP Rep. Chris Stewart, a bill they said would protect both the LGBTQ community and religious groups from discrimination. They also slammed Democratic leaders in the House, accusing them of failing to work across the aisle and amend the legislation in a bipartisan fashion.
Three House Republicans voted for the bill: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, John Katko of New York, and Tom Reed of New York.
I don’t know what will happen in the Senate, but unless they end the filibuster I don’t think it has a chance of passing. If they decide to jettison the filibuster, it might pass.
I wonder how many Americans who voted for Democrats in Congress were aware that this sort of thing would be the result (or are even aware of it now), and how many approve.
It is a truly ghastly bill (every bit as destructive as HR1) and may perhaps not survive in the Senate, but what is clear is that the legislation promoted by the party in power, combined with the dreadful and numerous executive orders already signed by Beijing Biden (no doubt without having read them), provides sufficient proof that the Harris/Biden administration, after barely one month, is far, far worse than one could ever have imagined, even in a nightmare of the worst-case scenario.
Serious question: Why are Dems so bound and determined to push through laws that a majority of Americans strenuously object to, that benefit (at most) a tiny minority of voters, and that as far as I can tell, involve no payday for politicians?
j e:
It is pretty much what I imagined, actually. And I’m not alone in that
Gays seems to have been declared pigs, and are more equal than the rest of us.
Why are Dems so bound and determined to push through laws that a majority of Americans strenuously object to
Special and peculiar, sometimes hidden or obfuscated, interests. It worked in California, when a trans/homosexual male judge overrode the democratic consensus. To this day, they remain firm advocates for the wicked solution, “selective-child”, the bigot’s solution, “diversity”, etc. Meanwhile, the PRC has joined their Western ideological counterparts in following the progressive path from the Great Leap (i.e. Planned Population) to one-child (i.e. single/central/minority choice) to selective-child (i.e. shared/shifted/delegated choice) and concentration/reeducation camps for deplorables.
There’s a sadistic part of me that wants this bill to pass in the Senate just so normies can see how insane and destructive the results of the modern Democrat party can be. If the end of competitive sports for women and girls doesn’t get people to wake up, I really don’t know what will.
I agree it’s a grotesque and terrible bill.
However, if it truly will die in the Senate, it may also a deeply cynical bill designed to appease the wacko-gender activists without paying the price of angering most Americans.
Dems who voted for Biden that I know deal with all this craziness by basically shutting their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting “la-la-la I can’t hear you” at the top of their lungs.
They don’t actually want it either, since the ones I know tell me I’m falling for ‘right wing lies’ for simply describing what the Democrats are doing.
SCOTT THE BADGER:
How do you get that from what I wrote? Actually, it’s quite the opposite. Gay people have a lot to lose from this bill. Perhaps you meant “trans” rather than “gay”?
I wouldn’t put any hope on anything stopping in the Senate, it might but don’t put money on it.
See how many Republican House members caved to the Leftists, and there is a handful of Republican Senators who will to stay in the Democrats Propaganda Ministry graces.
WRT your last graf. Ask the question, get blank looks. But no more MEAN TWEETS.
There are intended unintended consequences. Title IX was not good in the first place but the Dear Colleague letter implied consequences for using due process and not punishing innocent men. And the usual (one in five) subjects loved it. There are, afaik, about a hundred lawsuits against colleges for screwing the demonstrably innocent.
I don’t want my granddaughters, playing soccer or lacrosse, to be crippled by some clown who’s mad because he didn’t make starting fullback. And expects to shower with such others of the team not in the orthopedic ward.
It will be interesting if a gay marriage prospect accidentally wanders into a Muslim bakery and asks for a graphic cake and is told to take his business elsewhere.
Peasants: Sharpen those gelding implements!
One more category of ‘Hate Crime’ is bad. ‘Hate Crime’ legislation ought to be unconstitutional if the Bow Tie Folk who live in Cloud Cuck Land have a map which in any way resembles the territory.
Back to Reality. Why do DAs who step up to prosecute Hate Crimes sleep soundly in their beds at night?
It’s near the point where if our side which is very broad-church and has some strange bedfellows had a half-intelligent natural leader, he’d make a St Crispin’s Day Speech.
This is getting really out of hand. I’m getting ready for a bill that husbands must do there own laundry (which i already do) or pay his wife a “living wage” to do so …. sheeesh!
Skip:
The only way this passes the Senate is if the Democrats nuke the filibuster. They could never get enough GOP votes otherwise.
And only 3 Republicans defected in the House. That’s 1.4%.
@neo:
In the Antipodes where men depilate themselves with Vegemite, women sand boards with their vocal cords, and the Red Kangaroo defecates on the hop (I made this bit up), there was a Mail-in (geddit, geddit?) Referendum on Gay Marriage.
And let me assure you that the most eminent jurists in the land (no mere Kangaroo Court) ascertained that direct marketing campaign return postage pre-paid mail-in referendums were in no ways unconstitutional.
At the time was kitted up in my Franz Boas Gear and on a field trip Down Under, so paid some attention to this quaint ceremony.
All I can say is be prepared to be surprised by the depths of betrayal, blackmail, cuckery and all-round bastardry which rides into town on a latex-clad rainbow unicorn when the Kinky Krazies are on a roll.
Nothing to say a Cynical Exercise in Politicking can’t develop a mind and momentum of its own. There are only so many times the Fates may be tempted before they get up off their recliners and play ball.
No sooner that I say this.
I read this.
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2021/02/26/colin-farrell-don-cheadle-among-celebrities-pushing-congress-to-pass-2400-monthly-payments-to-moms/
I am surprised they use the word moms/mothers and not person 1 or person 2 or something like that.
It struck me as curious that the two Reps from NY were on the list of Yeas. I remembered Katko’s name from following the election-night returns. His and Reed’s districts are neighbors and together span the midriff of Upstate and indeed wrap around to Lake Erie. I could understand, perhaps, if Katko had heard from his urban or maybe especially his undergraduate constituents in Syracuse on this bill such that he could perhaps be swayed to a Yea. I was initially more puzzled about Reed’s vote, but his district contains Ithaca, after all, along with much of the Finger Lakes wine region. I even went to check if Fitzpatrick’s district was across the state line from theirs, hoping to find some weird but simple geographic explanation; but it is not.
j e,
I had the same thought as neo wrote at 4:08pm when reading your comment. I am completely unsurprised.
Richard Aubrey,
Steven Crowder already ran the experiment with Muslim bakers in Detroit several years ago with predictable results. However, journalists and attorneys were suddenly uninterested in pursuing chefs who shun homosexual couples.
Whether this bill passes or not, it indicates part of the left’s agenda.
This is part of how the left intends to crush dissent.
Another front in the left’s war upon decency is highlighted in an article by Joy Pullmann at The Federalist.
“To obtain or keep teaching licenses, Illinois now requires all K-12 teachers to indoctrinate their students in critical race theory, destructive lies about sex and gender, and other leftist mind poison. The rules clearly communicate that in Illinois, public schools are no longer places to learn, but places children will be lied to, manipulated, and warehoused as wards of a corrupt and malevolent state. And this kind of schooling is spreading nationwide.”
“Your Kids Would Be Better Off Feral Than Going To Schools That Make Them Anti-American Racists”
https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/25/your-kids-would-be-better-off-feral-than-going-to-schools-that-make-them-anti-american-racists/
It’s just a matter of time till the left goes after private schools and home schooling in America. Indoctrination ‘centers’ main mission is now to stamp out “thought crime”.
Given all of this; Cancel culture, Hate Crimes, Thought Crimes, “Domestic Terrorists”, “Silence is Violence”, Critical Race ‘Theory’, Coming: Climate Lockdowns ( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-LiebtlAErM ) how can this not be seen as initiating Orwell’s 1984?
Rufus. I saw that. But next time, there should be a few mischievous conservatives who insist on justice being done.
Is there any footage which could be shown, or copied?
Geoffrey Britain,
I’m sure you know this, but the Left has been “going against” private schools and home schoolers for decades now.
Richard Aubrey,
It looks like Real Clear Politics still has the Crowder video up (for now): https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/04/steven_crowder_gay_wedding_cakes_at_muslim_bakeries.html
Rufus,
That’s true. It’s how advanced they are on the road to their goal of full indoctrination wherein my focus lies. They are far closer to implementing “Hate Crime” laws and what effectively amounts to “Thought Crime” laws than many imagine. Far closer to passing ‘laws’ that require private schools to indoctrinate their students into leftist memes.
They’ve got the public schools. Next will be the private schools. Then will follow the outlawing of home schooling.
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson
Why has nobody answered my question, explain the physical basis of gender? Gender looks to be entirely imaginary to me.
“I wonder how many Americans who voted for Democrats in Congress were aware that this sort of thing would be the result (or are even aware of it now), and how many approve.”
As a wise woman once said: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Geoffrey Britain,
One of my sons attended a single sex private school with an over 100 year history of teaching the great books. He graduated in 2011 and the school still wasn’t using computers (“if Homer, Shakespeare and Newton got by without computers, our boys can too”). They typically average at least 5% of the Junior class getting perfect ACT scores (the national average is below 0.4%).
His Junior year they created a new department; Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Granted, the school had been well integrated for decades, was very low cost for a private school and has a very good endowment, since so many grades go on to success. No boy who has the academic ability to get in is turned away due to family income. The woman they hired checked all the boxes of what one would expect. I saw the handwriting on the wall then.
Ray,
I’m not sure I understand the question. Gender is a term used throughout human history (the actual word obviously varies by language) to distinguish the sexes of humans, animal and plant species. Females are the gender that produces children and males are the gender that provides the second set of DNA for those species that require a second set for reproduction, or do not reproduce asexually.
Rufus. Thanks. I can think of a number of folks who would benefit by seeing it. “Benefit” not having the usual definition.
Why has nobody answered my question, explain the physical basis of gender? Gender looks to be entirely imaginary to me.
Ray: Once upon a time gender was equivalent to biological sex. Now it’s been redefined as the characteristics associated to one sex. So if I, as an XY chromosome person, wear high-heels or just feel female, I can say my gender is female or non-binary.
Progress!
I agree it’s a horrifying bill, but does it actually imply that gender, orientation, etc. are choices? I thought the usual claim from these activists is that some people are hardwired to be some gender that is at odds with their bodies or chromosomes. That seems similar to what gays claim about their orientation.
Jimmy:
Good point. I’m not sure, only having read a few excerpts. But I think what the author may be referring to is the fact that something called “gender fluidity” is advocated – that is, that it’s not fixed but can mutate. And also that a person who is 100% a biological male, for example, can “decide” – without any medical intervention at all, not even taking hormones, and after many years as a man and identifying as a man – that “he” is a woman and must be given rights to everything a woman has rights to.
I suspect you’re right, neo. But in any case the problem with his position that it’s
“not a choice” is that in many cases it clearly is a choice, especially for women. Like one woman I know who was married for 20+ years, got divorced (not because of any sexual orientation issues), tried but couldn’t find a man for many years, ended up getting involved with a woman. As Woody Allen said, it “doubles your chance of getting a date on Saturday night.” It’s all a very slippery slope.
Jimmy:
I know some women like that, but some would describe themselves as bisexual (from the start?) and others would say they always were lesbians but had previously trying to conform to society’s and parents’ wishes. Still others probably would say it was a choice of theirs.
I thought the usual claim from these activists is that some people are hardwired to be some gender that is at odds with their bodies or chromosomes. That seems similar to what gays claim about their orientation.
Jimmy:
It is a problem. Old-fashioned gays, let us call them, claimed they were hard-wired to be attracted to their same sex — not that they necessarily identified with the opposite sex.
There were cross-dressers, who felt themselves to be the opposite sex to some degree, but could be either straight, gay or bi. Most drag queens, for instance, are straight guys.
So the gender theoreticians came up with a new binary, cisgender vs transgender. Cisgender means one identifies with one’s biological sex. Transgender means one identifies with the opposite sex. (It may be more complicated now.) But that’s not necessarily linked to which sex they are attracted to.
They haven’t worked the bugs out of this new unified field theory of sex/gender. There are old-fashioned gays who identify with their biological sex and are not at all keen to have trans people intruding, e.g. lesbians who don’t want a guy in a wig and high heels showing up in their spaces, whatever he says about gender identity.
At some point it’s almost a meaningless distinction. Once someone makes a decision, it be claimed as “hard wired.” It’s like asking if there is free will, or nature vs nurture, or calling something like obesity or alcoholism a “disease.” “Gee, Officer Krupke….”
On the hard-wired score, I’d boil it down:
Most straights and gays say they are hard-wired to their preferred sex partners.
Bis say they could go either way depending.
Some trans say they are hard-wired to identify as the opposite sex.
Some trans say they are gender-fluid.
My guess is that it has something to do with imprinting, like the baby geese who imprinted the Konrad Lorenz, as their mother, because he arranged things so he was the first moving object the goslings saw and he made a quacking sound.
At some point it’s almost a meaningless distinction
Jimmy:
I don’t think so. I’ve known gays, mostly male, for whom having sex with a female would be as unattractive as it would be for straight guys to have sex with a male.
Women are more likely than men to be bi.
From what I gather there are males and females who feel hard-wired to be the opposite sex, but that doesn’t determine their sex partners.
The difficulty seems to be that there are a fair number of people who can be fluid on either scale or both, which muddies the discussion.
People are complicated.
Sex: male and female. Sex-correlated gender, physical and mental (e.g. sexual orientation) attributes: masculine and feminine, respectively. The notable difference between trans/homosexuals, trans/bisexuals, trans/intergenders and trans/neogenders is that the latter suffer from a cognitive dissonance that evolves with an inability to reconcile between sex and gender. Trans/homosexuals are notably stable in that respect, in that the gender bias of each partner in a couplet does not progress and liberalize.
“Once upon a time gender was equivalent to biological sex.”
What time was that? Sex is a term from biology and refers to a classification of individuals as male or female based on chromosomes. Gender is a term from lingusistics and refers to a classification of noums as masculine, feminine or neuter based on the language. I used to live in Germany and in German nouns have gender. It has nothing to do with sex. As far as I could tell, it had no rhyme or reason. I was having gender confusion because some of the nouns would change gender depending on their use. I asked the language instructor how to keep track of these trandgendered nouns. She told me to forget about it, it even confuses the Germans, so I did. I have never suffered from gender confusion again. Can you tell me when gender became used for the word sex? As far as I can tell this was first used by Dr. Money who was advocating so called gender fluidity.
There is a narrow normal distribution of sex and sex-correlated gender. The transgender spectrum, including homosexuals, whether conceived, evolved, or progressed, are the outliers. The issue is normalization, tolerance, or rejection.
Ray,
The Left found that they couldn’t bend the term “sex” to do what they needed politically as it was too well established as referring to the two biological sexes. So they took a less well known term from linguistics, “gender”, which being less well established could be bent and twisted for their own purposes and then threw out the word “sex” and replaced it with the newly redefined “gender.”
And as said above “the issue is normalization, tolerance, or rejection” with the emphasis on “normalization,” forced acceptance, and celebration. The reason is to drive another nail in the coffin of the West and the hated middle class.
Posting a link to a Bitchute video seems to get my post spam-binned.
An interesting discussion with Professor Ray Blanchard, a published expert in the field of Transsexuality before the field became hyper-politicized.
(Removed Link — could try googling “Bitchute Edward Dutton Ray Blanchard”)
TL;DR: It’s complicated, but encouraging pubescent kids to do irreversible stuff is just plain stupid and evil.
huxley:
Where is the gender “dark matter” of all this gender cosmology? Dark matter makes some sense in physics cosmology on the grand scale. To me the gender theory cosmology is cough, cough, bullsh*t. All about power. Lesbians hate it, women/females get scr*wed by twisted guys (mostly) with serious psychological issues.