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:
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…..
<< 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.
Why are feminists silent about Craig Telfer— the MAN who was ranked 390th in the NCAA track and field division— and so simply decided he now identifies as a woman. Cece Telfer— still a MAN, is now ranked #1, having defeated hard-working, biological women.
DISGRACEFUL! pic.twitter.com/CcjNFjF3oY
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) June 2, 2019
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 handball, football, wrestling, mixed martial arts, basketball, 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:
He forgot to thank “Nature,” God, or both.
…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)
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.
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.”
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….
Women’s sports is done for.
(NewsBusters) Appearing on Saturday’s Fox & Friends on Fox News, Media Research Center research director Rich Royes detailed the utter failure of several media predictions about 2015. From The New York Times estimating huge budget surpluses for the U.S. government to CNN warning of a real-life war on women, Noyes told hosts Tucker Carlson and Peter Johnson just how wrong the liberal press was in its prognosticating.
(Via Gateway Pundit) From Atlas Shrugs:
Where are those goosestepping feminazis?
Beat The Press NY Post, March 3, 212
As coverage of last week’s flare-up between Bob Woodward and the White House devolved into the granular parsing of words and implications and extrapolations and possible intent, the larger point was roundly missed: the increasing pressure that White House correspondents feel when dealing with the Obama administration — to follow their narrative, to be properly deferential (!), to react to push-back by politely sitting down and shutting up.
“The whole Woodward thing doesn’t surprise me at all,” says David Brody, chief political correspondent for CBN News. “I can tell you categorically that there’s always been, right from the get-go of this administration, an overzealous sensitivity to any push-back from any media outlet.”
A brief recap: After the Washington Post ran a Woodward op-ed in which he claimed that the administration was “moving the goalposts” on the eve of the potential sequester, the veteran journalist went on to assert that economic adviser Gene Sperling said, in an e-mail, “I think you will regret staking out this claim.”
While Woodward spent a lot of the week on cable news going back and forth on whether that was a threat, few reporters, if any, asked why a high-level administration official spent so much time — Sperling admittedly shouted at Woodward during a 30-minute phone call, followed by that e-mail — attempting to control an opinion expressed in a newspaper.
The answer, say former and current White House correspondents, is simple: This administration is more skilled and disciplined than any other in controlling the narrative, using social media to circumnavigate the press. On the flip side, our YouTube culture means even the slightest gaffe can be devastating, and so you have an army of aides and staffers helicoptering over reporters.
Finally, this week, reporters are pushing back. Even Jonathan Alter — who frequently appears on the Obama-friendly MSNBC — came forward to say he, too, had been treated horribly by the administration for writing something they didn’t like.
“There is a kind of threatening tone that, from time to time — not all the time — comes out of these guys,” Alter said this week. During the 2008 campaign swing through Berlin, Alter said that future White House press secretary Robert Gibbs disinvited him from a dinner between Obama and the press corps over it.
“I was told ‘Don’t come,’ in a fairly abusive e-mail,” he said. “[It] made what Gene Sperling wrote [to Woodward] look like patty-cake.”
“I had a young reporter asking tough, important questions of an Obama Cabinet secretary,” says one DC veteran. “She was doing her job, and they were trying to bully her. In an e-mail, they called her the vilest names — bitch, c–t, a–hole.” He complained and was told the matter would be investigated: “They were hemming and hawing, saying, ‘We’ll look into it.’ Nothing happened.”
Lonely Conservative finishes his point on the story and it is worth noting:
This from the people who ginned up the phone “war on women.” But it still begs the question, why do these reporters put up with this sort of abuse?
I know that this does not need repeating, but if this were a Republican administration, the media would be burning the Commander-in-Chief at the stake. Instead, these tools continue to polish his knob in an advanced case of Stockholm Syndrome. They sacrifice their integrity, their objectivity, and their principles for an enemy administration whose collectivist goals they share.
Any decent American journalist would have run the emails referred to in this article on the front page. But instead, they cover for the Stalinist tactics of the thug in the White House.
This isn’t a one time thing, just remember how they treated Sheyrl Atkisson for her reporting on Operation Fast and Furious.
Via Memeorandum
Ron Suskind lifted the curtain back a bit in 2011 with his book Confidence Men, which ABC reported on then:
President Obama, who rose to power on a message of inclusion and equality, came under fire this week when an author quoted female members of his administration as saying the White House was a sexist and “hostile” work environment.
Since excerpts leaked from the book “Confidence Men,” journalist Ron Suskind’s take on how the Obama administration handled the financial crisis, Anita Dunn, former White House communications director, and Christina Romer, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers, have denied the substance of their remarks and said they were misquoted.
“I felt like a piece of meat,” Romer was quoted in the book as saying of one meeting with Larry Summers, former chairman of the National Economic Council, complaining she was “boxed out” of the discussion.
According to the Washington Post, Dunn says in the book: “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
The two women seemed to briefly open a window on the White House, giving a rare glimpse inside a tightly messaged administration, only to quickly close it. Accusations, however, that Obama favors male staffers have dogged him since his election when reporters noticed he spent critical face time on the basketball court and the golf course exclusively with men.