Forcing Gender Affirmation In California (Animal Farm “Parenting”)

As the Daily Mail reported:

Under the revision to the Family Code, courts would be given complete authority to remove children from their homes if their parents do not affirm their gender.

The change would also make it so that schools, churches, and other organizations would need to affirm the gender identity of a child or face repercussions.


First, the schools confuse young minds, then, if those confused minds do not find celebration of their confusion at home, the state can take them. This is some Animal Farm crap!

Here is the DAILY SIGNAL’S story on it:

recently amended California bill would add “affirming” the sexual transition of a child to the state’s standard for parental responsibility and child welfare—making any parent who doesn’t affirm transgenderism for their child guilty of abuse under California state law.

AB 957 passed California’s State Assembly on May 3, but a co-sponsor amended it after hours in California’s State Senate on June 6. 

Assembly Member Lori Wilson, D-Suisun City, wrote the bill and introduced it on Feb. 14. State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, co-sponsored it. Wilson’s child identifies as transgender.

Originally, AB 957 required courts to consider whether a child’s parents were “gender-affirming” in custody cases. Wiener’s amendment completely rewrites California’s standard of child care.

AB 957 post-amendment “would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child,” altering the definition and application of the entire California Family Code.

California courts would be given complete authority under Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to remove a child from his or her parents’ home if parents disapprove of LGBTQ+ ideology.

By changing the definition of what constitutes the “health, safety, and welfare of [a] child,” schools, churches, hospitals, and other organizations interacting with children would be required to affirm “gender transitions” in minors by default—or risk charges of child abuse.

AB 957 could also expand which organizations provide “evidence” of gender “nonaffirmation” to California’s courts.

Because of the addition of “gender affirmation” to the qualifications of California’s standards for “health, safety, and welfare,” California’s courts would now be able to accept reports of gender “abuse” from progressive activist organizations—as long as they claim to provide “services to victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.”

In essence, a boy could report his parents to his local school’s Gay-Straight Alliance club or other LGBTQ+ organization, who could then report the boy’s parents for child abuse.

Incredibly, the bill provides no definition whatsoever of what would qualify as “nonaffirming” to a child’s gender. 

As Susannah Luthi of The Washington Free Beacon points out, “The bill makes no distinctions regarding the age of a child, how long a child has identified as transgender, or affirmation of social transition versus medical sex-change treatments.”…..

Princeton Professor’s Failure At Proving Gender Is a Spectrum

MATT WALSH dissects an article written by a Princeton professor who claims that he can prove that there are more than two sexes. The Ivy League professor, Agustín Fuentes, has specialized knowledge in “racism,” “sex/gender” and “chasing monkeys,” according to his biography page. He argued in Scientific American magazine on Monday that biological reproductive cells (gametes) – such as sperm and egg cells – does not delineate whether someone is male or female. (BREITBART)

Dystopian Handmaid’s Tale is About the Democrats

The Left tries to blame Republicans for many things, many of which backfire constantly. Here is one example… the Handmaid’s Tale. They try to paint the religious right as the villain in that dystopian story, however, the Left loves dystopian terms.

  • “chest-feeding” instead of “breast feeding”… we get terms like “uterus havers” and “menstruators” instead of “woman”… we get the term “birthing bodies” instead of “pregnant woman” or “expectant mother”. Even the term “mother” itself is thrown out the door in this “re-orientation” of language. As a result, you have masses of women who are forced to silently accept this new corpus of terminology in which they themselves as women no longer exist. There is no upside for women in losing the words they need to talk about their bodies, their needs and their rights. (REDDIT)
  • US President Biden’s $6 trillion federal-budget proposal has attracted flak after it omitted the term pregnant mothers with “birthing people,” sparking condemnation with respect to the gender inclusivity, as well as among the women. The administration’s Maternal Health Guidance in the 2022 fiscal year budget included a public health document that addressed efforts to “reduce maternal mortality rates and end race-based disparities in maternal mortality.” (REPUBLIC WORLD)
  • Women’s March referred to female members of parliament as ‘menstruators’ (DAILY MAIL)
  • Australian National University’s latest “gender-inclusive handbook” instructs staff to use only “parent-inclusive language” when discussing labor, delivery and post-partum care, including replacing words like “breast-feeding” with “chest-feeding” and swapping “breast milk” for “chest milk” or “human milk” to avoid offending the…er, anomalously gendered. The guidelines also suggest replacing “mother” and “father” with “gestational” and “nongestational” parent. While the handbook notes that the vast majority of people idetify as “mothers” and fathers” “using these terms alone to describe parenthood excludes those who do not identify with gender-binaries.” (MRCTV)


The West has gone through many eras — the so-called Dark Ages, the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age and the Post-Modern. The present era is the Age of the Absurd.

In terms of the absurdities the cultural elites believe, and have convinced masses of people to believe, there has never been a time like today.

Here is a list of the most ridiculous that immediately come to mind.

No. 1: Men give birth.

Heading the list has to be the radical redefinition — indeed, denial of — sex and gender, leading to such reality-defying statements as “men give birth,” “men menstruate,” “birthing person” instead of “mother,” and to the Disney theme parks no longer greeting visitors as “ladies and gentlemen” or “boys and girls.”

No. 2: It is fair to allow biological men to compete in women’s sports.

We are supposed to believe that biological men do not have an innate physical advantage in competing against women. This is asserted as truth by every Ivy League university, virtually every other university, most high schools and by virtually all the elite media.


In a Nov. 8 tweet, Harvard Medical School’s Postgraduate and Continuing Education proclaimed that “Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth” as it promoted a panel discussion about “Maternal Justice.”

The use of the term “birthing people” to describe women resulted in negative reactions from many commenters.

“During slavery black women were referred to as breeders. This experiment to dehumanize women & to deconstruct us into nothing more than holes & body parts for men to use, started with black women. This is regressive and not progressive. Stop perpetuating this nonsense!”….


….Anyways, this is what happens when you get so woke. NARAL must realize it can’t even claim the feminist angle to cover for their love of baby killing anymore. So much for women’s reproductive rights, it’s now “birthing persons’” reproductive rights.

Of course, for inclusive liberals, this new definition allows for trans men (biological women) to get pregnant and consider themselves “pregnant men.” Actually, it’s even less specific than that. It allows non-binary people with uteruses – still biological women – to feel included without having to suffer the indignity of being referred to as they biologically are. So, yes, genderless humans by definition can give birth, and since this is NARAL, genderless humans get abortions now, too!

Since we are all so busy trying to wrap our heads around this warp speed jump forward in human enlightenment, several conservative commentators stepped in and made it clear for the rest of us just how stupid NARAL’s tweet was.



There’s a new addition to the list of words you can no longer say: woman.

Because 0.6 percent of the adult population is transgender, the word must be banished outright for the sake of inclusivity. And it’s not just activist Twitter users or gender studies professors who are taking note. Suddenly, our institutions have scrapped the word “woman” altogether.

The news media is on board: CNN tweeted that “individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancer screening at 25.” The new rule is being embraced by medical practices: gynecology clinic chain Tia advertised their services on TikTok to “uterus-having folks.

Abortion providers have taken note: Planned Parenthood offers advice to “people who are pregnant.” Our medical literature is also conforming: the September 2021 cover of the Lancet declared that “historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected.”

Public health officials have hopped on the bandwagon: the CDC’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination refers to “pregnant people.” And it goes all the way to the top of our government: the White House’s 2022 budget referred to mothers as “birthing people.”

The words they’re replacing “woman” with leave a lot to be desired. The list of new lingo goes on and on… menstruators, birthing persons, uterus-owners, vulva-havers, or, worst of all, non-males. What’s more dehumanizing than being reduced to a single aspect of your anatomy?


Menstruators? Uterus-havers? Language matters

…Erasing the words woman and mother is not inclusive

The very words we use to describe ourselves as a sex class are being erased. In media reports, in health campaigns, in human rights organisations, we are seeing the replacement of “woman” or “women” with terms like “menstruator“, “uterus-haver” or “people with a vagina“. Women tell us that they find this dehumanising, not inclusive. Our concern is that it blurs legal issues such as sex discrimination. This can only set women’s equality back. There is no upside for women in losing the words we need to talk about our bodies, our needs and our rights.


Don’t ever call me a “uterus owner” or a “person with eggs”

Anyone else noticed this common trend, mostly on Internet forums, of people calling women “uterus havers” or “person with a uterus”? I’m not lying when I saw someone refer to women as “person with eggs”.

I’m a woman. Call me a woman ffs. Just say woman. If there is a trans man present, then just say trans man.


anyone else uncomfortable with words like bleeders, birthing people, uterus havers?

I am wordier in my language but inclusive too. For example:

“Pregnant women and pregnant persons”

“Women and other persons who menstruate”

“Women and others with a uterus”

I am not comfortable erasing the word “women” from our language, mainly because all throughout history, the patriarchy tried to render us invisible. At the same time, I am fine adding language for inclusivity.

ETA: The phrase “women and other persons who menstruate” clearly implies “women who menstruate and other persons who menstruate”. The same goes for “women and others with a uterus”. Had I meant all women, there would have been a comma. For example , “women, and people who menstruate” implies “all women”, but women and persons who menstruate implies two nouns (women and persons) connected specifically to a verb (menstruate). A subset of women and persons. Not all women and all persons.



Mr. Rogers Tried To Warn Us

Mr. Rogers on #SCIENCE:

  • Mr. Rogers tried to warn everyone in the late 1960’s, and again in the 1980’s about an agenda on tv that isn’t suitable for minors. He went as far as making a song to remind young boys and girls what their biological gender is ln fear of one day the media would give them the idea to change genders later in life. Everyone laughed then but this is very much a reality now.

Mr. Rogers Tried Tried To Warn Everybody In The Late Sixties And In The Eighties

Here is the full testimony in the Senate:

On May 1, 1969, Fred Rogers, host of the (then) recently nationally syndicated children’s television series, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood (named Misterogers’ Neighborhood at the time), testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce Subcommittee on Communications to defend $20 million in federal funding proposed for the newly formed non-profit Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was at risk of being reduced to $10 million. Subcommittee chairman, Senator John Pastore (D-RI), unfamiliar with Fred Rogers, is initially abrasive toward him. Over the course of Rogers’ 6 minutes of testimony, Pastore’s demeanor gradually transitions to one of awe and admiration as Rogers speaks.

Trans Women Should Be Legally Treated as Women | UC Berkeley

Christopher Hitchens was my favorite atheist, I have to say Peter Boghossian is now in the #1 spot

Discussion abounds regarding the definition of “woman,” often focused on social and emotional factors of womanhood. This claim at the University of California Berkeley raises the stakes: “Trans women should be legally treated as women.”

One woman, a molecular geneticist, strongly disagrees with the claim, while another woman, an aspiring molecular geneticist, agrees. The third participant, a man, initially stands on the “disagree” line but recalibrates his confidence toward the end of the conversation.

Participants discuss how gender identity should be handled in hospitals, prisons, and legal identification documents (like driver’s licenses). The safety of biological women is a major point of consideration.

This conversation was filmed at UC Berkeley on April 19, 2022.

Orwellian/Messianic Pronouncements of the Left

(Rough quote) “If we call a man a woman, that’s what he is. If we call an open border a secure border, that’s what we have. If we tell you a collapsing economy is a robust economy, that’s what it is.” Fox News host Tucker Carlson rips President Biden for denying the United States is in a recession despite what economists say on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’

Tucker acknowledges the Mandela Effect many of us are experiencing on the definition of “recession.” Thankfully, the Biden administration is here to help. Highlights include:

“What matters is not the way things actually are. What matters are the words we use to describe things.”……………


The Sexualization of Children

Who should decide when and how to discuss issues like sex and gender with young children? Just a decade ago, this was thought to be the sole purview of parents. But that is no longer the case. Why is this shift happening, and who’s behind it? Karol Markowicz addresses these important questions.

“He’s a man!” (No Shame In This Younger Generation)

The audio of the video is bad (background noise/echo). But here is the main part of the convo via RIGHT SCOOP:

WOMAN: “You think his body is the same as the other girls in the pool? Are you saying he doesn’t have male organs?”

DIPSTICK: “I don’t think that ‘she’ – you are twisting words and I think you have no idea

WOMAN: “No, I’m a woman and that’s not a woman. Do you have ovaries?”

DIPSTICK: “Can I ask you a question? Are you a biologist?”

WOMAN: “Oh my god, don’t be ridiculous. I’m not a vet but I know what a dog is!”

Here is the heartening part of the event, the dude getting booed:

There is a Title IX lawsuit, which should win (POST MILLENNIAL).

Delusions of Gender | Matt Walsh (WSJ Article Added)

There’s no doubt about it, the Left has transformed gender from a biological fact into an ideological opinion, but how did we get to this point? Why is everything the Left tells you about gender wrong?

Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh dispels the Left’s delusions of gender during a special event from The University of Texas at Austin. This event is part of Young America’s Foundation’s Robert and Patricia Herbold Lecture Series.

YAF makes every effort to host in-person campus events. Unfortunately, administrators at the University of Texas at Austin limited attendance to only 99 for this event.

Here is an excellent WALL STREET JOURNAL article (via TOP TECH SOLUTIONS):

‘What are your pronouns?” is a seemingly innocuous question that has become increasingly common. Pronouns are now frequently displayed prominently in social-media bios, email signatures and conference name tags. Vice President

Kamala Harris

features “she/her” pronouns in her


bio, and Transportation Secretary

Pete Buttigieg

includes “he/him” in his. Then there are the singular “they/them” pronouns used by “nonbinary” people who identify as neither male nor female, as well as a growing list of bespoke “neopronouns” such as “ze/zir” or “fae/faer,” and the even stranger “noun-self” neopronouns like “bun/bunself” which, according to the

New York Times,

are identities that can encompass animals and fantasy characters.

A recent survey of 40,000 “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth” in the U.S. found that a full 25% use pronouns other than she/her and he/him exclusively. The Human Rights Campaign, which claims to be the “nation’s largest LGBTQ+ civil rights organization,” recently tweeted that we should all begin conversations with “Hi, my pronouns are __________. What are yours?” We are told that asking for, sharing and respecting pronouns is “inclusive” to trans and nonbinary people, and that failing to do so may even constitute violence and oppression.

If this all sounds confusing and makes you uncomfortable for reasons you find difficult to articulate, you’re not alone. While being subjected to constant rituals of pronoun exchanges may seem silly or annoying at best and exhausting at worst, in reality participating in this ostensibly benign practice helps to normalize a regressive ideology that is inflicting enormous harm on society. To understand why, you’ll need to familiarize yourself with its core tenets.

Proponents of gender ideology have completely decoupled the terms “man,” “woman,” “boy” and “girl” from biological sex. Gender ideology teaches that the terms “man/boy” and “woman/girl”—and their corresponding “he/his” and “she/her” pronouns—refer to a person’s gender identity, while “male” and “female” refer to biological sex. While you may define a woman as a female human adult, gender ideology contends that a “woman” is an adult of either sex who simply “identifies” as a woman.

But what does it mean to “identify” as a man or woman?

Gender activists believe that being a man or a woman requires embracing stereotypes of masculinity or femininity, respectively, or the different social roles and expectations society imposes on people because of their sex. Planned Parenthood explicitly states that gender identity is “how you feel inside,” defines “gender” as a “a social and legal status, a set of expectations from society, about behaviors, characteristics, and thoughts,” and asserts that “it’s more about how you’re expected to act, because of your sex.”

A recent New York Times piece refers to “men, women and gender nonconforming people,” as though gender nonconformity were incompatible with being a man or a woman. According to the Genderbread Person, a popular educational tool for teaching young children about gender identity, the properties of “man-ness” and “woman-ness” include certain stereotypical “personality traits, jobs, hobbies, likes, dislikes, roles, [and] expectations.”

The clear message of gender ideology is that, if you’re a female who doesn’t “identify with” the social roles and stereotypes of femininity, then you’re not a woman; if you’re a male who similarly rejects the social roles and stereotypes of masculinity, then you’re not a man. Instead, you’re considered either transgender or nonbinary, and Planned Parenthood assures you that “there are medical treatments you can use to help your body better reflect who you are.” According to this line of thinking, certain personalities, behaviors and preferences are incompatible with certain types of anatomy.

So when someone asks for your pronouns, and you respond with “she/her,” even though you may be communicating the simple fact that you’re female, a gender ideologue would interpret this as an admission that you embrace femininity and the social roles and expectations associated with being female. While women’s-rights movements fought for decades to decouple womanhood from rigid stereotypes and social roles, modern gender ideology has melded them back together.

Coercing people into publicly stating their pronouns in the name of “inclusion” is a Trojan horse that empowers gender ideology and expands its reach. It is the thin end of the gender activists’ wedge designed to normalize their worldview. Participating in pronoun rituals makes you complicit in gender ideology’s regressive belief system, thereby legitimizing it. Far from an innocuous act signaling support for inclusion, it serves as an implicit endorsement of gender ideology and all of its radical tenets.

Let me offer an analogy. Consider the Human Rights Campaign urging people to begin conversations with “Hi, my pronouns are ________. What are yours?” Now imagine a similar request from the American Federation of Astrologers encouraging everyone to begin conversations with, “Hi, I’m a Sagittarius. What’s your sign?” To respond with your own star sign would be to operate within and signal your tacit agreement with the belief system of astrology. If you reject astrology and respond to the question with “I don’t have a sign,” the reply might be “Of course you do! When were you born?” But that’s a completely different question.

Similarly, if you reject gender ideology’s claim that men and women are defined by their willful adherence to masculine and feminine roles and stereotypes, and so refuse to answer a request for pronouns, your interlocutor might say, “We all have pronouns! Do you identify as a man or a woman?” But because that concept of man and woman is nothing like yours, stating pronouns will only further normalize the ritual and validate a radical worldview.

The redefining of “man,” “woman,” “boy” and “girl” around sex-related stereotypes has serious real-world implications. The rejection of these stereotypes is now commonly viewed as a medical condition (gender dysphoria) to be treated with puberty blockers (for children), cross-sex hormones and surgeries that result in permanent sterility and consign patients to a lifetime of medical bills. The redefinition is also threatening the safety of women in prisons, as well as compromising the safety, fairness and dignity of women and girls in sports, as males who simply “identify” as girls or women are allowed access to these protected spaces.

The effort to resist gender ideology is reality’s last stand. We simply can’t ignore fundamental realities of our biology and expect positive outcomes for society. Pronoun rituals are extremely effective at normalizing and institutionalizing the abolition of biological sex in favor of gender identity. These rituals take advantage of people’s confusion and compassion to achieve compliance. But the time for politeness has long passed. The only proper response to the question “What are your pronouns?” is to reject the premise and refuse to answer.

Mr. Wright, an evolutionary biologist, is managing editor of Quillette.



Royal Gnosticism Displayed By the “Religious Left”

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton cover the recent Microsoft Employee Introductions during the company’s recent “Ignite” conference. This is a shorter version of a longer clip (LONG VERSION HERE), but the point of introducing “royalty” I thought deserved a segment of its own. I include the call by the blind gentleman.

A couple posts on the topic for the people who want to follow up on this:

  • ‘I’m a Caucasian Woman:’ Microsoft Event Highlights the Future of Woke Capitalism (VOICES OF A NATION)
  • ‘WTF Is This’? Microsoft Security Podcasters Introduce Themselves By Race, Gender, And Hairstyle (In Case You Couldn’t Tell By Looking At Them) (TWITCHY)
  • Microsoft Mocked for ‘Utterly Bananas’ Employee Introductions (RED STATE)

And a few weeks ago I heard something by Michael Knowles said at a DAILY WIRE symposium (DAILY WIRE BACKSTAGE: LIVE AT THE RYMAN) that really hit home with me. You always hear about “Leftism” being “religious,” or environmentalism being a “stand in religion,” and the like. This in my mind’s eye give the Postmodernist/Gnostic combo a real metaphysical “umph.”

Michael Horton defines some of the old vs. new aspects of “Gnosticism” (WAYBACK MACHINE). And Voddie Baucham describes how the Critical Race Theorists use it to “know” what is racist: “Voddie Baucham – What Is Ethnic Gnosticism?”

  • (Reform Wiki) In this clip, Pastor Voddie Baucham explains his phrase, “Ethnic Gnosticism,” which is the concept that certain people have a secret knowledge about racism because of their ethnicity.