War on Women

One NCAA Coach’s Battle to Protect Women’s Sports

Published by Papa Giorgio

Everyone expects the “Spanish Inquisition” nowadays because this is the tactic of the Left to silence common sense and disagreement. And science… biology.

In fact, I am sure more people [by far] have been affected — burned at the stake in todays modern parlance — in 10-years than the real Spanish Inquisition in it’s entirety. During the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, between 3,000-5,000* people were sentenced to death (about 1 per month). The Church executed no one. Still horrible, but the Left has literally killed thru “communal governments” [communism and fascism] many [many] more people in 100 years; and now through modern-day witch hunts.

Kim Russell was gaslit, chastised into silence, and forced to express remorse by college administrators for opposing males competing in women’s sports. Here’s why she refuses to apologize.

The DAILY CALLER has more:

Kim Russell, the head women’s lacrosse team coach at Oberlin College in Ohio, spoke out against the college for retaliating against her after she shared a social media post critical of male athletes participating in women’s sports, according to a video released by Independent Women’s Forum on Tuesday.

Russell shared a social media post on her personal Instagram account in support of Emma Weyant, who had placed second behind former transgender athlete Lia Thomas during the 500-yard freestyle at the 2022 NCAA women’s swimming championship, after the competition took place, she said in a video interview with Independent Women’s Forum. A student athlete forwarded the post to the college’s athletic director, who brought Russell in for several meetings with administrators and students where she was chastised for her views.

“I felt like I was burned at the stake. I felt like I was stoned and hanged all at the same time,” Russell said in the video, recalling a meeting held with the team. “It was what I would call the mob mentality . . . That meeting turned into anybody being able to say anything they didn’t like about my coaching style or my assistant’s coaching, anything.”

[….]

Russell still works at Oberlin College, but is unsure of how long she will continue to have a job at the college, according to USA TODAY. She admitted that going public with her story might result in negative repercussions, but wanted to speak out so that other women would feel empowered to stand up for themselves, she told the outlet.

“Right now I feel like women are afraid to speak up for women because they’re afraid to be canceled and afraid to be looked at as a part of a hate group when this is not about hate,” Russell told USA Today.

A 2023 survey found that nearly 70% of Americans do not support transgender athletes competing in categories outside of their biological gender, according to NBC News.

* In recent years, however, the Vatican opened up its secret archives for historical investigation. Inquisition records that were made by and for the Inquisition were allowed to be researched for the first time in history. Since then, the above facts have been generally discoverable in modern history books (whether Catholic or not). Corrected Inquisition history can be found in sources such as Inquisition by Edward Peters and The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision by Henry Kamen. Comparative secular documentaries include The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition (BBC) and the more sensationalistic The Spanish Inquisition (History Channel).

The years in which the Inquisition was extremely active was between 1480 and 1530. Henry Kamen estimates about 2,000 executed, based on the documentation of the autos-da-fé, the great majority being conversos of Jewish origin. He offers striking statistics: 91.6% of those judged in Valencia between 1484 and 1530 and 99.3% of those judged in Barcelona between 1484 and 1505 were of Jewish origin. (WIKI, and Kamen’s book).

converso, (Spanish: “converted”), one of the Spanish Jews who adopted the Christian religion after a severe persecution in the late 14th and early 15th centuries and the expulsion of religious Jews from Spain in the 1490s. In the minds of many Roman Catholic churchmen the conversos were still identified as Jews, partly because they remained within the Jewish communities in the cities and partly because their occupations (merchants, doctors, tailors) had been monopolized by the Spanish Jewish people. Such identification caused many Christians to regard conversos as a subversive force within the church.

In 1499 a staunch and somewhat fanatical Roman Catholic, Pedro Sarmiento, wrote the anti-Semitic Sentencia-Estatuto, which prohibited conversos from holding public or ecclesiastical offices and from testifying against Spanish Christians in courts of law. That statute was followed by the 16th-century laws of purity of blood (limpieza de sangre) which further strengthened the laws against anyone of Jewish ancestry and were more racial than religious in nature. It was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that some of the legalized prejudice against Jews in Spain was modified.

(ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA) 

Here is Kamen’s commentary on the death toll:

In Castile the incidence of executions was probably higher. In the auto de fe at Ciudad Real on 23 February 1484, thirty people were burnt alive and forty in effigy; in the auto at Valladolid on 5 January 1492, thirty-two were burnt alive. The executions were, however, sporadic and concentrated only in the early years. In rounded terms, it is likely that over three-quarters of all those who perished under the Inquisition in the three centuries of its existence, did so in the first half-century. Lack of documentation, however, makes it impossible to arrive at totally reliable figures.  One good estimate, based on documentation of the autos de fe, is that 250 people were burnt in person in the Toledo tribunal between 1485 and 1501 . Since this tribunal and that of Seville and Jaen were among the few in Castile to have had an intense level of activity, it would not be improbable to suggest a figure five times higher, around one thousand persons, as a rough total for those executed in the tribunals of Castile in the early period. Taking into account all the tribunals of Spain up to about 1530, it is unlikely that more than two thousand people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition.

Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (London, England: Yale University Press, 1997), 59-60.

There Is No Greater Expression Of Hatred To Women Than This

Published by Papa Giorgio

Tulsi nails it. Prager notes if a society can say a female is a male (& vice versa), then any horror in human history is easily sold as mainstream to said society. Gulags, holocausts, racial killings, and the like. Those are smaller steps than thinking that men can give birth or menstruate. Tulsi explains the issue perfectly:

What Two Biological MEN Taught Me about Womanhood (LOL)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Trans TikToker Dylan Mulvaney recently appeared on the Ulta beauty podcast to discuss womanhood with another trans person. Here’s what I learned watching two biological men explaining what it means to be a woman.

Tucker: What is a Woman?

Published by Papa Giorgio

Fox News host gives his take on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson not defining what a woman is on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’

Maybe the #MeeToo movement should be the #MeWho movement. A phrase that came out of that movement is this: “Believe Women”

  • What is a woman? — Biden’s SCOTUS pick, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

Or how bout this trope?

  • “Women make 73 cents for every man’s dollar.”

So again the question is,

  • What is a woman? — Biden’s SCOTUS pick, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

How about this: “women remain underrepresented in CEO positions.” You get the point.

BONUS:

Fox News host gives his take on the the confirmation hearings of Ketanji Brown Jackson on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’

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

Published by Papa Giorgio

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).

Trans “Women” vs. Women | John Stossel

Published by Papa Giorgio

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:

 

The Transgender Craze in Teen Girls (Abigail Shrier)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Exposing the Reality of the Transgender Craze in Teen Girls | Abigail Shrier | WOMEN | Rubin Report

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Abigail Shrier (author of ‘Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters’) about the sudden explosion of gender dysphoria in teenage girls, the failure of Target to censor her book, how schools are sneaking gender identity education into anti bullying programs, and why therapists and parents who question transgender science or gender affirming surgery are putting themselves at risk. Abigail first discusses how easy it is to get books banned in 2020. All it took was a couple of comments on Twitter for Target to evoke modern day censorship and pull the book from its shelves. Abigail says how the book got back on shelves and why so many people are hungry for honest discussions about trans issues.

She discusses the skyrocketing rates of teen girls that have what Lisa Littman has labeled ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria). Most of these teenagers may just be experiencing mental health issues and are being directed to HRT (hormone replacement therapy), testosterone injections and transgender surgery. Abigail talks about how ideas like non binary and gender identity are being taught in the public school system and are even being taught to some kindergarteners. She shares materials that have been leaked to her from teachers who are too afraid of being accused of transphobia or losing their job for daring to question the propaganda written by activists. Abigail also reveals how activists wisely included trans issues under programs designed to stop bullying instead of in sex education where parents have the power to opt their children out of.

She also discusses how most of the parents that have spoken with her are progressive politically, but feel like their families are under attack and now feel politically homeless. Abigail discusses how any parent or therapist who strays from the gender affirmation model risks losing their child or their job. She reveals how trans rights activists inserted gender identity language into conversion therapy laws that were intended to protect gay kids. These conversion therapy laws can now cause a therapist or doctor to lose their license for not affirming and supporting transition. She also reveals what is hidden from most teens, how hard it is to actually transition. Transitioning means committing to a lifetime of injecting hormones, testosterone, the negative side effects of puberty blockers, and possible sterility.

Gender politics and discussions about equality have dominated the national conversation for the last few years. Is it possible to achieve perfect gender equality? What issues are trying to be addressed by feminism in the 21st century? If you’d like to hear about the current state of the feminist movement in the US as well as the state of human rights in other parts of the globe check out this playlist.

The End of Women’s Sports

Published by Papa Giorgio

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:

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

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • 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…..

Another Biological Male Wins A Women’s Sporting Event

Published by Papa Giorgio

<< 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.