Trans “Women” vs. Women | John Stossel

Trans women compete in women’s sports and many win. Is that fair?

Just a quick aside. The trans body lifter that lost in the Olympics lost because HE was 43-years old. If HE had been a younger, healthier dude, he would have most likely won. And the point is HE took a spot away from a female going to Japan. See some of my other posts:

 

Title VII (Word Have Meaning) Albert Mohler | Daniel Horowitz

  • The social stakes at play in this decision are far greater than many commentators seem to realize. If the ACLU attorneys are successful, all differentiation between the sexes in the context of employment will be unlawful, regardless of transgender status. In the oral arguments, Justice Ginsburg acknowledged that, unlike race or religion, there is legal precedent for employers to recognize sex differences in the workplace. Meanwhile, Justice Gorsuch referenced the “massive social upheaval in such a decision.” (NATIONAL REVIEW) [But yet voted for that upheaval]

Albert Mohler discusses the Court’s decision and the change in the meaning of the word “sex” in 1964. This decision will wreak havoc on many streams of society, as Daniel Horowitz’s article notes well.

Daniel Horowitz’s article at CONSERVATIVE REVIEW is a well written warning to the road ahead:

….Thanks to Justice Gorsuch’s contorted reading of the word “sex” in anti-discrimination law, you now have a right to sue for protection for biological traits you do not possess. This means that legitimate rights of others will now have to yield. Anyone who can’t see the devastating real-world effects of this decision – well beyond firing someone simply because you hate their private behavior – is clearly not paying attention.

Codifying into anti-discrimination law the concept that a man who says he is a woman must be treated according to his mental illness is not something we can live with as a society. Gorsuch might want to dismiss the earth-shattering ramifications of his opinion, but he knows well that there are already pending lawsuits to demand that men be treated as women, in very dangerous or disruptive ways that go well beyond trying to use the boot of government to stamp out mean or discriminatory behavior.

Here is an outline of some of the most immediate threats from this decision. These are not hypothetical societal and legal problems; these issues are in contention as we speak and have now been decided by this court.

Forcing States And Doctors To Perform Castrations

Forcing employers to retain gay employees and not fire them simply because of their private behavior sounds very innocuous and even laudatory. But what about forcing doctors to perform “sex change” operations and forcing states to fund them? Codifying the desires of someone afflicted with gender dysphoria into sex-based anti-discrimination law will force states and hospitals to treat anyone who believes they are really the opposite gender as that preferred gender.

In fact, the Supreme Court has already tacitly mandated this. In May, justices declined to take Idaho’s appeal from the Ninth Circuit, where the lower court ordered the state to pay for a castration surgery for a male serving time in Idaho prison for sexually abusing a 15-year-old boy.

Similarly, a federal judge in Wisconsin mandated that the Badger State use its Medicaid funding to pay for “gender confirmation” mutilations, which can include castration, mastectomies, hysterectomies, genital reconstruction, and breast augmentation.

Those radical decisions will now be backed up in all circuits. There are already numerous lawsuits suing employers to provide castration and hormone procedures under the employer health insurance mandate of Obamacare. Obamacare uses civil rights laws to bar discrimination in offering health care coverage. It would be easy for the courts to now apply Gorsuch’s interpretation of Title VII to other areas of discrimination in the ACA statute.

Will Gorsuch be there for us to overturn those decisions?

[….]

Religious Schools Must Become Pagan

We were told not to worry about Obergefell creating a right to gay marriage because it was merely an issue of a marriage certificate and would never affect private religious institutions. Well, what happens now if a cross-dresser or a prominent homosexual activist wants to teach in a Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim school? The majority opinion blithely denied these concerns and noted how title VII protects religious liberty by offering some long-standing exceptions. However, those exceptions have been interpreted more and more narrowly as time goes on. The same way Gorsuch has evolved on the definition of a sex, the courts are evolving on religious protections, and the former will now accelerate the latter.

[….]

Freedom Of Speech

As Justice Alito warned in his dissent, the New York City government has already made it a criminal offense not to address someone by his or her preferred pronoun.

“After today’s decision, plaintiffs may claim that the failure to use their preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination,” wrote Alito.

Supporters of this decision claim that because the court did not create a constitutional right, merely a retroactive reinterpretation of statue, Congress is still free to legislate. But who are we kidding here? The Civil Rights Act is as politically untouchable as the Fourteenth Amendment, and there is no way Congress will have the guts to deal with this fallout. State legislatures will be cut out from the process entirely.

Also, as Alito warns, the jump from codifying transgenderism into statute to into the Constitution is nothing more than a hiccup for its supporters to overcome, and the court has consistently done that in the past. There are already numerous cases percolating in the lower courts to do just that. Once the lower courts codify a new right, we have seen the Supreme Court first ignore the lower court radicalization and then downright legitimize it.

Yesterday, Mitch McConnell didn’t even mention this travesty in his press briefing. Trump bizarrely commented, “they ruled and we live with their decision” and called it a “very powerful decision.” [to which Mohler dealt with]…..

NATIONAL REVIEW opines well regarding the “knowledge” of Neil Gorsuch by stating wryly after their intro, “Nobody knows. Except maybe Neil Gorsuch.”

If some conservative critic had said in 1964 that the civil-rights bill then under consideration would outlaw discrimination against men who wish to undergo voluntary genital amputation in service of a persistent fantasy that they are in some transcendent sense female, Lyndon Johnson would have looked at him a little funny. Even Barry Goldwater did not think such a thing. There is not a word about sexuality, homosexuality, or the contemporary phenomenon politely known as transgenderism in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The law does forbid discrimination based on “sex.” From that modest material, a Supreme Court majority, led by Justice Gorsuch, has constructed a vast new edifice of civil-rights law under which a man’s desire to wear a dress (I am not being snarky — the issue in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC was an employer’s maintenance of separate dress codes for male and female employees) is protected by the same law, to the same extent, and under the same principles as African Americans seeking to maintain their political and economic rights after centuries of chattel slavery and ruthless official repression.

Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning is, of course, impeccable: If you wouldn’t fire a woman for wearing a dress, you can’t fire . . . well, wait: The transgender ideology insists that a biologically male individual who identifies as a woman is female in the same sense your mother is, so it cannot be that sex is genuinely the issue — the issue is that one of the ladies in the office is being treated differently from the others. Justice Gorsuch squares this all with a nice dose of hocus-doofus: You wouldn’t be homosexual if you weren’t the same sex as the people to whom you are sexually attracted, ergo discrimination against homosexuals is discrimination on the basis of sex. In parallel: If you really weren’t a member of the sex you say you are not a member of, you wouldn’t be transgender, ergo sexual discrimination, QED.

“Textualism,” Justice Gorsuch calls this.

And he has a point. His reading of the text is entirely sophomoric, but it is in its daft way literal and, if you are willing to be persuaded, persuasive. There is that niggling question of democratic legitimacy: Nobody who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 thought he was voting for a bill to equate the situation of transgender people, of whom no one had heard of then since the word had not yet found its way into English, with the situation of African-American people, and to place the whole mess under rigorous federal monitoring. Nobody who voted for the 1964 bill was voting for that, and none of the people who voted for those representatives thought he was voting for such a thing, either. It is a law that nobody agreed to, but, if we are to credit Justice Gorsuch et al., the plain fact of it has been sitting there, awaiting discovery, since Gorsuch was toddling around his kindergarten in Denver.

This is not jurisprudence. This is magical thinking.….

The NEW YORK POST has an excellent post regarding the issue as well — bravo for them — in the article they note that “This isn’t textualism. It’s ivory-tower liberalism.” Yep:

….In Bostock v. Clayton County, the majority informed us that the interpretation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, held unchallenged between its enactment and the year 2017, was, in fact, erroneous. The statute’s prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of sex, Gorsuch told us, extends to “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

In Bostock v. Clayton County, the majority informed us that the interpretation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, held unchallenged between its enactment and the year 2017, was, in fact, erroneous. The statute’s prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of sex, Gorsuch told us, extends to “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

This isn’t textualism. It’s ivory-tower liberalism. And it’s completely at odds with the Supreme Court’s longstanding dictum that Congress, in drafting statutes, won’t inscribe a hidden meaning in otherwise plain language: As Justice Samuel Alito sharply noted in dissent, “sex,” in 1964, meant biological sex — man and woman — not orientation and certainly not subjective gender identity.

The tangible results will be harrowing. Following Bostock, can a Catholic school deny employment to a teacher whose sexual lifestyle blatantly flouts millennia of Catholic moral teaching? Can an Orthodox Jewish day school refuse to hire a male teacher who self-identifies as a woman, contravening traditional teaching rooted in Genesis?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to enact much of this agenda legislatively in 2019 with the so-called Equality Act — and failed. All it took was a Republican justice to impose it ­nationwide via judicial fiat.

Religious employers’ conscience rights aside, long-settled employment law has now been thrown into chaos. The court concedes that such issues as sex-specific bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams will be on the chopping block in future litigation. As my former boss, Judge James C. Ho of the Fifth Circuit, noted in a similar case last year, the underlying legal issues ­“affect every American who uses the restroom at any restaurant, buys clothes at any department store or exercises at any gym.”

The substitution of subjective gender identity for embodied sex particularly threatens biological women, whose rights Congress specifically set out to protect with the 1964 act. The entire edifice of American anti-discrimination law, after all, rests on the principle that the bodily differences between men and women — in athletic competition, in private or sensitive spaces — mean something. Can that edifice survive if its cornerstone is ­removed? I don’t see how.

Bostock is no joke, and it lays bare the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative legal movement.

Let’s say this in the bluntest possible terms: The conservative legal movement and its various institutional vessels, such as the Federalist Society, have failed conservatism. There is simply no avoiding that straightforward conclusion — not when the blow is delivered from the Federalist Society-vetted Neil Gorsuch.

Generations of right-leaning law students have now been taught that the only proper way to interpret law is to obsess over the text while eschewing the thorny moral questions raised by cases. But as Bostock shows, even a conservative, “textualist” jurist can massage a text enough to divine a new meaning that simply wasn’t there when Congress framed a law like the 1964 act. Meanwhile, a more authentic textualist like Alito can reach the ­opposite conclusion.

The result is that the legal left makes loud arguments about justice and the good, by its lights, and triumphs, while the legal right mutters about textualism…..

The Trans War On Women #FairPlay

Abigail Shrier was on the Dennis Prager Show this week and the discussion surrounded her article in Newsweek and her new book:

  • Who Has the Right to Be Called a Girl? (NEWSWEEK)
  • Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters (REGNERY)

Here is a taste of the article:

The physical advantages conferred during male puberty are massive and unbridgeable, especially in sprinting and contests of strength. To take just one example cited in the complaint, the fastest female sprinter in the world is American runner Allyson Felix. Her lifetime best for the 400-meter run is remarkable—just 49.26 seconds. But based on 2018 data, nearly three hundred high school boys in the U.S. alone could beat it. When the two boy runners now besting Connecticut girls identified as male, they had no notable achievements in sprinting; now, identifying as female and competing against girls, they have taken first place in 13 out of 14 state championship events.

(On Twitter, I suggest keeping an eye on the hashtag #fairplay)

Some other sources worth a mention:

  • Attorneys for Conn. High School Runners Ask Judge to Recuse after He Forbids Them from Describing Trans Athletes as ‘Male’ (NATIONAL REVIEW)
  • Teen Girls vs. ‘Trans’ Athletes (NATIONAL REVIEW)
  • TUCKER CARLSON: Biological Boys Compete In Women’s Sports? | Tucker Carlson Interview With Selina Soule (YOUTUBE)
    Just a note on the Tucker video above: The Alliance Defending Freedom attorney noted that one of the transgender athletes (male in otherwords) now holds ten records in the state previously held by other girls over a twenty year period.

Girls shouldn’t be forced to compete against males. Male athletes have numerous unfair physical advantages, and policies that allow males in female athletics will inevitable lead to girls becoming spectators in their own sports. That is why Idaho passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in March. But now, the ACLU has filed suit against Idaho in an effort to remove those protections. (If you don’t want to watch the full race, pick it up around the 3-minute mark to see.)

Selina Soule was one of the top five female high school sprinters in Connecticut… until competing against biological boys changed the game. Now, women aren’t just losing their races — they’re losing their chances to compete at all. Why is this happening? And what should we do about it?

SEE MORE AT RPT:

Girls’ Civil Rights Violated By Trangender “Athlete”

More via THE DAILY WIRE:

The U.S. Department of Education Office has agreed to investigate a violation of girls’ civil rights in Connecticut following a complaint filed in Boston concerning two biologically male transgender teens triumphing over biologically female competitors in high school track.

“The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Wednesday granted the request of three teen track athletes to investigate their allegations of illegal discrimination,” The Alliance Defending Freedom announced in a press release sent to The Daily Wire.

“Ever since the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference [CIAC] adopted a policy that allows biological males who claim a female identity to compete in girls’ athletic events, boys have consistently deprived Selina Soule and two other female athletes of honors and opportunities to compete at elite levels,” the release noted.

ADF is representing the three athletes who filed the complaint in June.

The CIAC policy forced Soule to compete against female-identifying biological males in a high-stakes track competition where two transgender sprinters beat the field, taking first and second place by significant margins. Soule landed in 8th, missing an opportunity to compete in front of college coaches by two places.

[….]

“Forcing female athletes to compete against boys is grossly unfair and destroys their athletic opportunities,” she argued. “Title IX was designed to eliminate discrimination against women in education and athletics, and women fought long and hard to earn the equal athletic opportunities that Title IX provides. Allowing boys to compete in girls’ sports reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women under this law. We shouldn’t force these young women to be spectators in their own sports.”…….

Another Biological Male Wins A Women’s Sporting Event

<< SAVE WOMEN’S SPORTS >>

“I feel like…” The mantra of the Left’s War on Women. I am posting the below video from “Adam and Eve, Not Steve” because he plays the track even and you can see just how BIG he is compared to the other biological women… WITH commentary from the “gal” herself. (WEASEL ZIPPERS hat-tip)

WESTERN JOURNALISM has a good article with some MUST CLICK links in it, which I will EMPHASIZE:

The controversy arises in the fact that CeCe Telfer isn’t a female. In fact, Telfer was named “Craig” at birth, in a male body.

The male body, as is scientifically understood, is naturally FASTER and STRONGER than the female body. But don’t worry, SB Nation’s LGBT-themed OutSports website vouchsafes: Telfer “doesn’t win every time.”

“Bad news for those looking for proof that transgender women athletes are ‘destroying’ women’s athletics because of what they claim is their ‘inherent advantage’ over cisgender — non-trans — competitors,” a March 10 article read.

“They will surely be disappointed in the results from the NCAA Division II Indoor Track & Field Championships in Pittsburgh, Kan., Saturday. If anything, they will see that one young trans woman, CeCe Telfer, who’s been targeted by right-wing websites for ‘switching to female’ didn’t even crack the top five in any of her events.”

Well, herein lies the problem: No, CeCe Telfer doesn’t always win. In fact, Tefler participated in two events at the national championships last week and won only one of them.

What OutSports didn’t mention was that when “CeCe” was known as “Craig,” Telfer competed on the men’s team at Franklin Pierce — and was nowhere near a champion.

An article in the running website LETSRUN.COM laid out the facts in scathing detail:

“Prior to joining the women’s team this season, Telfer was a mediocre [Division II] athlete who never came close to making it to nationals in the men’s category,” the article noted.

“In 2016 and 2017, Telfer ranked 200th and 390th, respectively, among [Division II] men in the 400 hurdles (Telfer didn’t run outdoor track in 2018 as either a man or woman). Now she’s the national champion in the event simply because she switched her gender (Telfer’s coach told us that even though she competed on the men’s team her first three years, her gender fluidity was present from her freshman year).

“The fact that Telfer can change her gender and immediately become a national champion is proof positive as to why women’s sports needs protection. “

So, no. The athlete named Tefler doesn’t always win. In the women’s division, “CeCe” is a top-ranked runner who won the national championship in the 400-meter hurdles by more than a second and placed fifth in the 100-meter hurdles. Competing against other men, “Craig” was ranked 200th in the nation in the 400-meter hurdles.

But please, tell us how dishonest, transphobic “right-wing websites” are getting it wrong regarding Telfer by claiming biological males HAVE AN INHERENT ADVANTAGE over biological females in women’s sports.

[….]

The implication of medical unanimity on this issue is ACTUALLY TOTALLY FALSE, but let’s say the officials who formulated the NCAA’s transgender athletics policy weren’t informed of that.

I’d like them — and the folks at OutSports, who declined to mention this very pertinent fact in their hot take about how Telfer “doesn’t win every time” — to explain how Craig Telfer was ranked 200th in the nation at his best in the men’s 400-meter hurdles, but CeCe Telfer finished first in the same event at the national championships on the women’s side.

Surely all of those “strength and endurance advantages a transgender woman arguably may have as a result of her prior testosterone levels” would have “dissipate[d] after about one year of estrogen or testosterone-suppression therapy,” right?

If that were the case, CeCe Telfer would be the same mediocre athlete that Craig Telfer was.

Somehow, that didn’t happen and CeCe is trouncing the competition in a manner Craig never could have dreamed of.

I wonder why.

Man Sets Four Female Powerlifting Records (War on Women)

THE BLAZE explains the below horror: “Powerlifter Mary Gregory — a biological male competing as a transgender female — announced Saturday on Instagram setting four women’s world records in one day at a Raw Powerlifting Federation event: Masters world squat, open world bench press, masters world deadlift, and masters world total.”

MOONBATTERY reminds us that this is just the latest “woman’s sport” to fall:

It isn’t just powerlifting. Transgender moonbattery has had a similar effect on handballfootballwrestlingmixed martial artsbasketball, and every other sport where men are allowed to compete as women for the sake of political correctness.

Women’s sports records are now meaningless.

THE BLAZE continues in noting that “Mary” thanked some of the following people:

  • “As a transgender lifter I was unsure what to expect going into this meet and everyone — all the spotters, loaders, referees, staff, meet director, all made me welcome and treated me as just another female lifter,” Gregory added. “Thank you!”

He forgot to thank “Nature,” God, or both.

The Destruction of Women’s Sports No Big Deal… To the Left

A friend posted a picture of the back of my van, a sticker I print based off of him saying the “equal” sign looks like a “pause button” on a remote control:

Some interesting conversation ensued on his Facebook after this was posted. My main response is to the idea expressed by one person that this is not a big deal:

  • How is this such a huge topic? The percentage of the population on the planet is significantly low(< 1%). No one deserves to be discriminated against-but your over stating calling it a Huge topic as a whole. The vast majority of the general public doesn’t even know a transgender person.

I wish to reprint ans add to my response to the original ideas for cataloging here at RPT. My general first point was to note a very recent article by tennis legend, Martina Navratilova….

Martina Navratilova earlier had commented about the issue being unfair. She was slammed, and said she would educate herself better. She went and studied the issue more and came back MORE convinced about her position. I think she is still wrong in part thinking that a removal of a sex organ of mutilation to the body changes her statement “A man builds up muscle and bone density, as well as a greater number of oxygen-carrying red blood cells, from childhood,” —- BUT, even her position is anathema to the Democrat Party withing the past 5-years.

….Navratilova was chastised in December when she tweeted, “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women,” but then apologized and said she would “educate myself better” after she was accused of being transphobic.

After doing the research, however, she said that if anything, “my views have strengthened.”

“To put the argument at its most basic: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organization is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires,” she said.

In a Tuesday article, Out Magazine called her a “TERF,” or trans-exclusionary radical feminist, and said her comments were “scientifically unsound,” while McKinnon told Reuters that the tennis legend “trades on age-old stereotypes and stigma against trans women.”

Martina Navratilova Has Decided to Pivot to TERF 

— Dr. Rachel McKinnon (@rachelvmckinnon) February 20, 2019
Gay Tennis Legend Martina Navratilova on Transgender Athletes: ‘It’s Insane and It’s Cheating’ 

— CNSNews.com (@cnsnews) February 19, 2019
Navratilova argued that it wasn’t enough to require reduced hormone levels, as many sports governing bodies have done in response to transgender athletes (CNS NEWS)

“A man builds up muscle and bone density, as well as a greater number of oxygen-carrying red blood cells, from childhood,” she wrote. “Training increases the discrepancy. Indeed, if a male were to change gender in such a way as to eliminate any accumulated advantage, he would have to begin hormone treatment before puberty. For me, that is unthinkable.”

The 62-year-old Navratilova also blasted those who wield the “transphobe” label to silence critics, calling it “just another form of tyranny.”

“I’m relatively tough and was able to stand up for myself in my Twitter exchange with McKinnon, but I worry that others may be cowed into silence or submission,” she said…..

(WASHINGTON TIMES)

Now, here is my direct response to the above “what’s the big deal” quoted:

…it is a huge topic because the professional Left is taking that less than 1% and demanding the majority change their concept of gender by state force and rules in women’s sports. In other words, in only 5-years this has changed women’s sports dramatically. Can’t wait for the next decade [<sarcasm]. The Washington Times notes just how unfair this issue is in high school sports.

Transgender Sprinters Finish 1St, 2Nd At Connecticut Girls Indoor Track Championships

  • “She” [Andraya Yearwood] recently finished second in the 55-meter dash at the state open indoor track championships. The winner, Terry Miller of Bloomfield High, is also transgender and set a girls state indoor record of 6.95 seconds. Yearwood finished in 7.01 seconds and the third-place competitor, who is not transgender [a girl*], finished in 7.23 seconds.

Parents spend time and money to have their girls compete to attain a level of competition to enter either the Olympics or get a scholarship at a prestigious college (or both). This is no longer the case. The professional Left is ruining women’s sports in the name of “equality.”

Remember, you either want liberty, or equality, but you cannot have both.

* CR Commented On My Friend’s Original Post (OP):

  • There is so much wrong with your statement but your point I do agree with. A woman born in a male body should not be allowed to compete against a woman born in a female’s body. It’s not fair. I agree. I’m just not sure where the line should be drawn….

I try to help draw a line:

it is simple to draw a line. If you have double X chromosomes, a vagina, a uterus, ovaries, menstrual periods and lactating breasts, you are a female. You should compete in female sports. If you dope (by taking estrogen to mask some male qualities) or were born with a penis and XY chromosomes, you should not compete in women’s sports. 

Don’t be a racist and transphobic for attacking these two beautiful young Nubian queens who placed first and second in a high school track event.

I also expressed publicly a question many ask. That is, why do people simply support — uncritically — or promote actively these issues with little or no countering information to balance their knowledge of the issues? I always encourage people to be logically coherent and support these other “categories” of persons who “feel” someway about themselves:

Trans-Topics

These are issue being muddied with the arguments put forward by those pushing “equality.” BUT MY QUESTION IS WHY? I think David Mamet* has a reasonable answer. It is the transferring of “Sainthood” to a growing secular culture. It gives people a sense of worth they think is beyond them… what use to be in the realm of faith, is now internalized. It offers a “metanarrative” for people to view the world. For instance, in a wonderful National Review article by Andy Ngo (last name sounds like “Noh”), he notes of Jussie Smollet’s bio line on his Twitter (the actor who faked a hate crime):

  • “While I can only speculate as to Smollett’s motives, perhaps a clue can be found in his bioline on Twitter. Smollett writes: ‘I am simply here to help save the world’.” (NATIONAL REVIEW | See more on my site: Hate Crime Hoaxes In The Trump Era)

The hubris involved in a political movement that thinks through legislation it can change gender and weather patterns is legend. And it is really a transfer of Sainthood:


MAMET


[David Mamet] …is an American playwright, film director, screenwriter and author. He won a Pulitzer Prize and received Tony nominations for his plays Glengarry Glen Ross (1984) and Speed-the-Plow (1988). He first gained critical acclaim for a trio of off-Broadway 70s plays: The Duck Variations, Sexual Perversity in Chicago, and American Buffalo. His plays Race and The Penitent, respectively, opened on Broadway in 2009 and previewed off-Broadway in 2017.

Feature films that Mamet both wrote and directed include House of Games (1987), Homicide (1991), The Spanish Prisoner (1997), Heist (2001), and Redbelt (2008). His screenwriting credits include The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981), The Verdict (1982), The Untouchables (1987), Hoffa (1992), Wag the Dog (1997), and Hannibal (2001). Mamet himself wrote the screenplay for the 1992 adaptation of Glengarry Glen Ross, and wrote and directed the 1994 adaptation of his play Oleanna (1992). He was the executive producer and frequent writer for the TV show The Unit (2006–2009).

Mamet’s books include: The Old Religion (1997), a novel about the lynching of Leo FrankFive Cities of Refuge: Weekly Reflections on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (2004), a Torah commentary with Rabbi Lawrence KushnerThe Wicked Son (2006), a study of Jewish self-hatred and antisemitismBambi vs. Godzilla, a commentary on the movie business; THE SECRET KNOWLEDGE: ON THE DISMANTLING OF AMERICAN CULTURE (2011), a commentary on cultural and political issues; and Three War Stories (2013), a trio of novellas about the physical and psychological effects of war.

(WIKI)

QUOTE ONE

One might say that the politician, the doctor, and the dramatist make their living from human misery; the doctor in attempting to alleviate it, the politician to capitalize on it, and the dramatist, to describe it.

But perhaps that is too epigrammatic.

When I was young, there was a period in American drama in which the writers strove to free themselves of the question of character.

Protagonists of their worthy plays had made no choices, but were afflicted by a condition not of their making; and this condition, homosexuality, illness, being a woman, etc., was the center of the play. As these protagonists had made no choices, they were in a state of innocence. They had not acted, so they could not have sinned.

A play is basically an exercise in the raising, lowering, and altering of expectations (such known, collectively, as the Plot); but these plays dealt not with expectations (how could they, for the state of the protagonist was not going to change?) but with sympathy.

What these audiences were witnessing was not a drama, but a troublesome human condition displayed as an attraction. This was, formerly, known as a freak show.

The subjects of these dramas were bearing burdens not of their choosing, as do we all. But misfortune, in life, we know, deserves forbearance on the part of the unafflicted. For though the display of courage in the face of adversity is worthy of all respect, the display of that respect by the unaffected is presumptuous and patronizing.

One does not gain merit from congratulating an afflicted person for his courage. One only gains entertainment.

Further, endorsement of the courage of the affliction play’s hero was not merely impertinent, but, more basically, spurious, as applause was vouchsafed not to a worthy stoic, but to an actor portraying him.

These plays were an (unfortunate) by-product of the contemporary love-of-the-victim. For a victim, as above, is pure, and cannot have sinned; and one, by endorsing him, may perhaps gain, by magic, part of his incontrovertible status.

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 134-135.

This next quote deals with “saint-hood”… but notes that people support it at others cost. When it happens to them, it isn’t fair.

QUOTE TWO

There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)

The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.

We cannot live in peace without Law. And though law cannot be perfect, it may be just if it is written in ignorance of the identity of the claimants and applied equally to all. Then it is a possession not only of the claimants but of the society, which may now base its actions upon a reasonable assumption of the law’s treatment.

But “fairness” is not only a nonlegal but an antilegal process, for it deals not with universally applicable principles and strictures, but with specific cases, responding to the perceived or proclaimed needs of individual claimants, and their desire for extralegal preference. And it could be said to substitute fairness (a determination which must always be subjective) for justice (the application of the legislated will of the electorate), is to enshrine greed—the greed, in this case, not for wealth, but for preference. The socialistic spirit of the Left indicts ambition and the pursuit of wealth as Greed, and appeals, supposedly on behalf of “the people,” to the State for “fairness.”….

….But such fairness can only be the non-Constitutional intervention of the State in the legal, Constitutional process—awarding, as it sees fit, money (reparations), preferment (affirmative action), or entertainment (confiscation)….

….“Don’t you care?” is the admonition implicit in the very visage of the Liberals of my acquaintance on their understanding that I have embraced Conservatism. But the Talmud understood of old that good intentions can lead to evil—vide Busing, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action, Welfare, et cetera, to name the more immediately apparent, and not to mention the, literally, tens of thousands of Federal and State statutes limiting freedom of trade, which is to say, of the right of the individual to make a living, and, so earn that wealth which would, in its necessary expenditure, allow him to provide a living to others….

….I recognized that though, as a lifelong Liberal, I endorsed and paid lip service to “social justice,” which is to say, to equality of result, I actually based the important decisions of my life—those in which I was personally going to be affected by the outcome—upon the principle of equality of opportunity; and, further, that so did everyone I knew. Many, I saw, were prepared to pay more taxes, as a form of Charity, which is to say, to hand off to the Government the choice of programs and recipients of their hard-earned money, but no one was prepared to be on the short end of the failed Government pro-grams, however well-intentioned. (For example—one might endorse a program giving to minorities preference in award of government contracts; but, as a business owner, one would fight to get the best possible job under the best possible terms regardless of such a program, and would, in fact, work by all legal and, perhaps by semi- or illegal means to subvert any program that enforced upon the pro-prietor a bad business decision.)*

Further, one, in paying the government to relieve him of a feeling of social responsibility, might not be bothered to question what in fact constituted a minority, and whether, in fact, such minority contracts were actually benefiting the minority so enshrined, or were being subverted to shell corporations and straw men.




* No one would say of a firefighter, hired under rules reducing the height requirement, and thus unable to carry one’s child to safety, “Nonetheless, I am glad I voted for that ‘more fair’ law.”

As, indeed, they are, or, in the best case, to those among the applicants claiming eligibility most capable of framing, supporting, or bribing their claims to the front of the line. All claims cannot be met. The politicians and bureaucrats discriminating between claims will necessarily favor those redounding to their individual or party benefit—so the eternal problem of “Fairness,” supposedly solved by Government distribution of funds, becomes, yet again and inevitably, a question of graft.

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 116-117, 122, 151, 154.

THE BLAZE posts on this excellent response to a question at a Heritage Foundation seminar. MOONBATTERY says this of Dr. Cretella: “Dr. Cretella is President of the American College of Pediatricians. No doubt social engineers are out for her head.”

Zac Petkanas Told Tucker Carlson That No Examples Exist…

…So, I provide two for him:

Tucker Carlson had on Zac Petkanas, Democratic National Committee senior adviser, to discuss the transgender bathroom issue going beck to the states to control rather than the federal government dictating to the states what they should do (more via the Daily Caller). during the interview, zac said Tucker’s example was invalid BECAUSE there are no examples Tucker could provide. BZZZZZZT, wrong. (SEE MORE)

The Left’s War On Women’s Sports

  • The solution to this problem is simple but not easy: Gender dysphoric kids must compete athletically with the sex they’re born with and must follow the rules against performance enhancing drugs. The same is true for college and Olympic and professional athletes. Any other system penalizes women and dismantles the gains of two generations of Title IX. (American Spectator)

Tucker Carlson (http://tinyurl.com/hlq68x9) had on Zac Petkanas, Democratic National Committee senior adviser, to discuss the transgender bathroom issue going beck to the states to control rather than the federal government dictating to the states what they should do (more via the Daily Caller: http://tinyurl.com/gnqx62e). during the interview, zac said Tucker’s example was invalid BECAUSE there are no examples Tucker could provide. BZZZZZZT, wrong. I clipped Tucker’s show as well as two news reports to showing examples. BEFORE getting to a few links to other examples, the example of the female wrestler taking testosterone to transition to a boy is a prime example of some of the issues involved.

…Beggs’ participation — and dominance — in the girls’ league has spurred consternation among some in the Dallas region, including a lawsuit filed by an unhappy parent, who argued that if Beggs identifies as a boy he should have to wrestle other boys. 

And Beggs would, his family told the Dallas Morning News, if he could, but the rules won’t allow it.

[….]

Some of Beggs’ female competitors forfeited their matches in the regional meet, reported the Associated Press, out of apparent fear of injury.

(Mercury News)

Just to show the insane media viewpoint… “Mack” has not gotten an operation yet, but Mercury News says this: “Beggs wrestles in the 110-pound class, where his record is 52-0.” No, she is still a girl in every-way but is taking testosterone. She could still decide to forego this whole thing… and then magically what? a girl again according to the Mercury News. Herein lies the rub… if these school districts in this state allowed her to wrestle boys, what would be the idea in stopping a boy from wrestling girls? In other words, chicks would be dominated in a similar fashion.

ALSO — “The American College of Pediatricians issued a statement this week condemning gender reclassification in children by stating that transgenderism in children amounts to child abuse” (BIZPAC REVIEW). (The American College of Pediatricians is a more conservative leaning group of medical professionals.)

I have previously posted on some of these examples of the war-on-women:

Here are some other stories about sports and transgender men-to-women dominating the sport:

I forgot about this example via GENDER TRENDER:

Lana Lawless, a 58-year-old man, launched a late-in-life career in women’s professional golf, and immediately became the World Champion in Women’s Long Drive competition. One observer remarked: “Guess what Lawless’ distance was at the 2008 Long Drive Championship? Three hundred thirty five yards. That’s nearly 100 yards longer than Paula Creamer’s average. And Lawless complained that taking the hormones had caused her to become weaker. How far did she hit when she was a he? Apparently not long enough to beat the men.

Ms. Lawless has already proven that the Olympic committee is wrong. She has proven with her Long Drive participation that no matter how many hormones she takes, she still is going to have—by birth—more upper body muscle and upper body strength than even the longest hitting women. Even European Tour player Laura Davies doesn’t hit a golf ball 335 yards.”

Male Bicyclist Wins Female Division

One person commenting on this story said: “Remember when steroids were illegal in professional sports?” Yep. Great point.

Here is part of the story via the DAILY CALLER:

A 36-year-old biological male dominated the women’s division of the El Tour de Tucson last weekend, an annual cycling competition in Arizona that attracts thousands of amateur and professional cyclists.

Jillian Bearden — who identifies as a transgender woman — won the 106-mile race in 4 hours and 36 minutes, the Arizona Daily Star reported.

Bearden finished approximately 25 minutes behind former Mexican Olympian cyclist Hugo Rangel, who took home first place in the men’s division.

“It’s absolutely huge,” Bearden told the Daily Star, referring to his victory. “We’re at a moment of time — especially now — where not only do we have to come out but we have to be positive. We have to come together in solidarity and move this country in a direction that is accepting of all.”

Bearden’s victory is just the latest example of what critics say is an unfair advantage biological men have when competing in women’s athletic events.

In June, Alaskan high school girls felt cheated after teenage male Nattaphon Wangyot took home all-state honors in girls’ track and field. (RELATED: High School Boy Wins All-State Honors In Girls’ Track And Field)

 

Male Took Home All-State Honors In Girls Track And Field

The Daily Caller has this:

High school girls in Alaska are crying foul after a male sprinter took home all-state honors in girls’ track and field. According to local reports, it was the first time in Alaskan history that a male athlete competed in the girls’ state championships.

Haines senior Nattaphon Wangyot –who self-identifies as a girl– advanced to the state finals in the 100-meter and 200-meter events. He won fifth place in the 100-meter dash and third place in the 200-meter. In both events, he competed against girls as young as ninth grade.

One of the girls Wangyot beat out for a slot at the state meet, Hutchison runner Emma Daniels, took issue with allowing a male athlete to compete in girls events….

[….]

…Another runner, Peyton Young (who competed in a different event) took a similar position. “I don’t know what’s politically correct to say, but in my opinion your gender is what you’re born with,” she told the Alaska Dispatch News.

“It’s the DNA. Genetically a guy has more muscle mass than a girl, and if he’s racing against a girl, he may have an advantage.”

Alaska allows each school to decide whether to let boys compete in individual girls’ events. According to the Alaska Dispatch News, Wangyot’s district doesn’t even require boys to undergo hormone therapy before competing in girls’ events…

[….]

Minnery argued that “Allowing students to play on teams of the opposite sex disproportionately impacts female students, who will lose spots on a track, soccer and volleyball teams to male students who identify as female.”

Mind you… this will be the “norm”

“I’ve never felt so overpowered in my life,” said female mixed martial arts fighterTamikka Brents. “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not, because I’m not a doctor. I can only say I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female.”

The woman Brents was referring to isn’t a woman at all, but transgender MMA fighter Fallon Fox, who fights as a woman against women. Brent felt the full weight of what it was like to fight a man, and even with all her training and strength, she quickly fell to Fox….

(The Federalist)

Women’s sports is done for.