Thank you for this call to action. FYI, New York State has also passed a proposed amendment to its constitution that will appear on the ballot in November. The bill is touted as protective of abortion rights and the Ds hope it will help drive out the vote in the 2024 election. What appears not to be widely known is that the bill also re-defines sex to include “gender identity” and “gender expression,” neither of which is itself defined. I don’t know whether, at this point, there is any effort afoot to address this before it gets on the ballot. If there is, and anyone knows about it, it would be great to know who is the contact point.
I would also like to hear from anyone, who knows how the legislative process works, whether there is a way, even now, to push for a change in the legislation prior to its appearance on the ballot. For example, while not a perfect solution, could a push could be made to make a “technical amendment” under which “gender identity” and “gender expression” are included as separate characteristics, rather than subsumed within the word “sex”? There is an excellent article in Sullivan and Todd’s book, “Sex and Gender,” entitled “Sex, Gender, and Equality in the United States: Confusion, Conflict, and Consequences,” by Callie H. Burt, that walks this issue through and proposes this type of solution in re the US Equality Act, which appears equally applicable to the proposed NYS Constitutional amendment.
FYI, the language of the NYS amendment as it will appear on the ballot is:
A. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of
this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race,
color, ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, DISABILITY, creed [or], reli-
gion, OR SEX, INCLUDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, GENDER
EXPRESSION, PREGNANCY, PREGNANCY OUTCOMES, AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE
AND AUTONOMY, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] THEIR
civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or insti-
tution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state,
PURSUANT TO LAW.
B. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL INVALIDATE OR PREVENT THE ADOPTION OF
ANY LAW, REGULATION, PROGRAM, OR PRACTICE THAT IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT OR
DISMANTLE DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF A CHARACTERISTIC LISTED IN THIS
SECTION, NOR SHALL ANY CHARACTERISTIC LISTED IN THIS SECTION BE INTER-
PRETED TO INTERFERE WITH, LIMIT, OR DENY THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ANY PERSON
BASED UPON ANY OTHER CHARACTERISTIC IDENTIFIED IN THIS SECTION.
Yes, and I have personal knowledge because I am on the team who put this together:
Di-ag.org is a fledgling grassroots org of Dems (and recently former Dems who consider themselves politically homeless) that sees the tremendous harm caused by GAC and are dismayed and disappointed in the Democratic response. The org is focused on shifting the false prevailing narrative, that this is a political/social justice issue rather than an issue of medical harm and the silencing of evidence-based concerns.
Anyone can contact us via the “learn more“ link or at info@di-ag.org if they have more questions. Hope that helps!
Kara: Re your remarks on Republicans, the topics of transgenderism and abortion have nothing that I can see to do with each other. Since you are so analytical about the former, I’m surprised you can run the two together. Abortion ethics is about either who has a right to life comparable to adult humans’, or the ethics of homicide. Transgenderism implicates neither topic.
I’m your total ally on the material reality of sex and on the ethics of sex-segregated sports and private spaces. That has nothing to do with killing babies, or any aspect of radical feminism.
Thank you for this call to action. FYI, New York State has also passed a proposed amendment to its constitution that will appear on the ballot in November. The bill is touted as protective of abortion rights and the Ds hope it will help drive out the vote in the 2024 election. What appears not to be widely known is that the bill also re-defines sex to include “gender identity” and “gender expression,” neither of which is itself defined. I don’t know whether, at this point, there is any effort afoot to address this before it gets on the ballot. If there is, and anyone knows about it, it would be great to know who is the contact point.
I would also like to hear from anyone, who knows how the legislative process works, whether there is a way, even now, to push for a change in the legislation prior to its appearance on the ballot. For example, while not a perfect solution, could a push could be made to make a “technical amendment” under which “gender identity” and “gender expression” are included as separate characteristics, rather than subsumed within the word “sex”? There is an excellent article in Sullivan and Todd’s book, “Sex and Gender,” entitled “Sex, Gender, and Equality in the United States: Confusion, Conflict, and Consequences,” by Callie H. Burt, that walks this issue through and proposes this type of solution in re the US Equality Act, which appears equally applicable to the proposed NYS Constitutional amendment.
FYI, the language of the NYS amendment as it will appear on the ballot is:
A. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of
this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race,
color, ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, DISABILITY, creed [or], reli-
gion, OR SEX, INCLUDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, GENDER
EXPRESSION, PREGNANCY, PREGNANCY OUTCOMES, AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE
AND AUTONOMY, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] THEIR
civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or insti-
tution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state,
PURSUANT TO LAW.
B. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL INVALIDATE OR PREVENT THE ADOPTION OF
ANY LAW, REGULATION, PROGRAM, OR PRACTICE THAT IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT OR
DISMANTLE DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF A CHARACTERISTIC LISTED IN THIS
SECTION, NOR SHALL ANY CHARACTERISTIC LISTED IN THIS SECTION BE INTER-
PRETED TO INTERFERE WITH, LIMIT, OR DENY THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ANY PERSON
BASED UPON ANY OTHER CHARACTERISTIC IDENTIFIED IN THIS SECTION.
Thank you for the call to action!! Also -Check out Democrats Informed About Gender!
https://di-ag.org/
This org looks promising. I can’t, though, seem to find anything about who is mounting this. Do you have any info on that?
Yes, and I have personal knowledge because I am on the team who put this together:
Di-ag.org is a fledgling grassroots org of Dems (and recently former Dems who consider themselves politically homeless) that sees the tremendous harm caused by GAC and are dismayed and disappointed in the Democratic response. The org is focused on shifting the false prevailing narrative, that this is a political/social justice issue rather than an issue of medical harm and the silencing of evidence-based concerns.
Anyone can contact us via the “learn more“ link or at info@di-ag.org if they have more questions. Hope that helps!
Kathleen, thank you for responding and for working to put this together. I’m going to hop over now and sign on!
Yay! And don't forget to invite your friends!!
Done. The Twitter maven in our household put it out on Twitter.
Kara: Re your remarks on Republicans, the topics of transgenderism and abortion have nothing that I can see to do with each other. Since you are so analytical about the former, I’m surprised you can run the two together. Abortion ethics is about either who has a right to life comparable to adult humans’, or the ethics of homicide. Transgenderism implicates neither topic.
I’m your total ally on the material reality of sex and on the ethics of sex-segregated sports and private spaces. That has nothing to do with killing babies, or any aspect of radical feminism.