Kudos! I am a centrist Democrat and a gender critical gay man. Trump's willingness to take an aggressive approach to California's flagrant denial of biological reality and women's rights is one of the very few areas where he has my support.
"Trans inclusion" is just another instance of male aggression against women. In this case, it is supported by Democrats who are so open minded that their brains have fallen out of their heads.
I am glad the letter names names of offending male athletes who are competing as females. That is because, at the moment, the preferred tactic among trans allies is to negate the significance of the issue on the ground that so few trans-identified males are taking part in women-only sports. It's quite amazing how members of a political party that is notorious for its inability to stay on message have suddenly all agreed that to kill the men-in-women's-sports controversy everyone must insist the problem does not exist.
We really need the gay men to join the fight. The trans movement is at its core homophobic. It eats kids who would just grow up to be gay. We need our fellow rational Democrats to call their representatives and tell them to stop the harm. Thank you for your response. I never thought I would cheer on Trump, but here I am.
If time permits after the a.e.s.t. Committee meeting. Senate elections committee is hearing Sen Neillo sb458 ha bill to have the legislative analysis office write referendum titles instead of the AG’s office. It is in room 2100 at 10:30.
Awesome full-court press, thrown a fox or two amongst the chickens. Particularly impressive given there's only some two months since Trump started the ball rolling with his EOs on sex and gender.
However, there are a couple of ambiguous and misleading phrases in your post -- not that they're unique to that post -- that seriously chap my hide and contribute mightily to the whole transgender clusterfuck. To wit:
EF: "(1) ...it uses the phrase 'sex at birth' instead of 'sex assigned at birth' ... and (2) ... males who identify as females ..."
Re (1), if you want to apply the strict biological definitions for the sexes then technically we don't acquire a sex until the onset of puberty -- why the many intersex who don't go through that are technically sexless.
Re (2), hard to imagine a more pretentious and misleading phrase than "identify as" -- who the hell says they "identify as an accountant"? 🙄
Y'all may wish to see how the Oxford Learners Dictionary defines the phase:
OLD: "identify as, phrasal verb;
identify as something;
to recognize or decide that you belong to a particular category;"
One can't reasonably -- or sanely -- say, for example, that they "identify as a doctor" unless they can pay the membership dues for the categories in question -- like having a degree from a recognized medical school.
Similarly, the "membership dues" to qualify as males or females are, to a first approximation, to have either testicles or ovaries, respectively. Clearly, neither Lia Thomas, nor Bruce Jenner, nor all the transwomen playing in women's sports have any of the latter, i.e., ovaries. Barking mad that they would claim to "identify as" such. Just as mad that anyone gives them more than the time of day.
I agree with you. Language matters and I do not always get to write the language of the bills, as much as I try to insert myself. I did write AB844 with some colleagues. This is why that bill defines sex scientifically. We are still educating those in power that language matters and that it is a zero-sum game. Politicians can be picky and pricky trying to seem "nice" and some do not understand at first blush the importance of language.
Amen to that. An important principle going back some 2500 years to the time of Confucius:
Wikipedia: "If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."
Though Stock's preferred, and more or less scientifically accurate, definitions for the sexes are simply not those used in mainstream biology and stipulated by reputable sources such as the Oxford Dictionary of biology.
Something of a serious failing replicated in your AB844:
AB844: "Female” means a person whose reproductive system, as determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth, naturally has, had, will, will have, or would have, but for a congenital anomaly or intentional or unintentional disruption, produced eggs, whether or not eggs are produced."
But now consider the OED definition for the same term which corresponds, more or less, to the standards of biology:
OED: "female, adjective;
1) Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
May be somewhat academic as to the consequences of the rather profound differences there, but hard not to imagine some sticky problems. Will we have one set of definitions for the kiddies in their civics classes and another, rather contradictory, set for their biology classes?
A famous British jurist, Lord Acton, once said something to the effect that it is generally a bad idea to pass flawed laws on the assumption that those flaws won't be taken advantage of.
Awesome, but please don't cream your jeans over Newsom's offhand throwaway remarks, it's exactly what he wants from you over it but they cost him nothing, obliged him to nothing and thus meant nothing.
Like the rest of the Democrats, he will be held accountable for his legislative and policy actions in any future races he jumps into on the state or national level.
I love this so much! I feel optimistic that the tide is turning against illogical, toxic, harmful gender ideology.
Kudos! I am a centrist Democrat and a gender critical gay man. Trump's willingness to take an aggressive approach to California's flagrant denial of biological reality and women's rights is one of the very few areas where he has my support.
"Trans inclusion" is just another instance of male aggression against women. In this case, it is supported by Democrats who are so open minded that their brains have fallen out of their heads.
I am glad the letter names names of offending male athletes who are competing as females. That is because, at the moment, the preferred tactic among trans allies is to negate the significance of the issue on the ground that so few trans-identified males are taking part in women-only sports. It's quite amazing how members of a political party that is notorious for its inability to stay on message have suddenly all agreed that to kill the men-in-women's-sports controversy everyone must insist the problem does not exist.
We really need the gay men to join the fight. The trans movement is at its core homophobic. It eats kids who would just grow up to be gay. We need our fellow rational Democrats to call their representatives and tell them to stop the harm. Thank you for your response. I never thought I would cheer on Trump, but here I am.
Any news to share about how April 1st went?
Great article, Erin!
Thank you for putting this all together. Explained the political manipulation very well. The democrats have certainly lost the plot.
If time permits after the a.e.s.t. Committee meeting. Senate elections committee is hearing Sen Neillo sb458 ha bill to have the legislative analysis office write referendum titles instead of the AG’s office. It is in room 2100 at 10:30.
Go Erin Go!!
Awesome full-court press, thrown a fox or two amongst the chickens. Particularly impressive given there's only some two months since Trump started the ball rolling with his EOs on sex and gender.
However, there are a couple of ambiguous and misleading phrases in your post -- not that they're unique to that post -- that seriously chap my hide and contribute mightily to the whole transgender clusterfuck. To wit:
EF: "(1) ...it uses the phrase 'sex at birth' instead of 'sex assigned at birth' ... and (2) ... males who identify as females ..."
Re (1), if you want to apply the strict biological definitions for the sexes then technically we don't acquire a sex until the onset of puberty -- why the many intersex who don't go through that are technically sexless.
Re (2), hard to imagine a more pretentious and misleading phrase than "identify as" -- who the hell says they "identify as an accountant"? 🙄
Y'all may wish to see how the Oxford Learners Dictionary defines the phase:
OLD: "identify as, phrasal verb;
identify as something;
to recognize or decide that you belong to a particular category;"
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/identify-as
One can't reasonably -- or sanely -- say, for example, that they "identify as a doctor" unless they can pay the membership dues for the categories in question -- like having a degree from a recognized medical school.
Similarly, the "membership dues" to qualify as males or females are, to a first approximation, to have either testicles or ovaries, respectively. Clearly, neither Lia Thomas, nor Bruce Jenner, nor all the transwomen playing in women's sports have any of the latter, i.e., ovaries. Barking mad that they would claim to "identify as" such. Just as mad that anyone gives them more than the time of day.
I agree with you. Language matters and I do not always get to write the language of the bills, as much as I try to insert myself. I did write AB844 with some colleagues. This is why that bill defines sex scientifically. We are still educating those in power that language matters and that it is a zero-sum game. Politicians can be picky and pricky trying to seem "nice" and some do not understand at first blush the importance of language.
Thank you for the comment.
Thanks.
EF: "Language matters ..."
Amen to that. An important principle going back some 2500 years to the time of Confucius:
Wikipedia: "If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names
A more recent kick at the same kitty by Kathleen Stock in an essay at Duke Law -- not that many there were happy about them publishing it 😉🙂:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol85/iss1/3/
Though Stock's preferred, and more or less scientifically accurate, definitions for the sexes are simply not those used in mainstream biology and stipulated by reputable sources such as the Oxford Dictionary of biology.
Something of a serious failing replicated in your AB844:
AB844: "Female” means a person whose reproductive system, as determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth, naturally has, had, will, will have, or would have, but for a congenital anomaly or intentional or unintentional disruption, produced eggs, whether or not eggs are produced."
But now consider the OED definition for the same term which corresponds, more or less, to the standards of biology:
OED: "female, adjective;
1) Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
May be somewhat academic as to the consequences of the rather profound differences there, but hard not to imagine some sticky problems. Will we have one set of definitions for the kiddies in their civics classes and another, rather contradictory, set for their biology classes?
A famous British jurist, Lord Acton, once said something to the effect that it is generally a bad idea to pass flawed laws on the assumption that those flaws won't be taken advantage of.
Awesome, but please don't cream your jeans over Newsom's offhand throwaway remarks, it's exactly what he wants from you over it but they cost him nothing, obliged him to nothing and thus meant nothing.
Like the rest of the Democrats, he will be held accountable for his legislative and policy actions in any future races he jumps into on the state or national level.