This is where gender identity becomes a religion. As if identifying as a woman, makes you female. Biology is real. Asking women to uphold this lie, to be polite and support the man, while risking their health and well being is insanity. Bravo to the brave bunch of female athletes. Their display of courage will spread like a wildfire.
I think Kara has pointed out this legal contradiction elsewhere, but in this case it's glaring.
That is: the university cites a nondiscrimination policy that includes no discrimination based on sex and also no discrimination based on gender (identity). If you favor the gender identity THEN you discriminate against sex-class. If you favor sex-class then you discriminate against gender identity. There's an overt conflict here in the law.
We must assume that the law was written for the express purpose of creating the overt conflict that nullifies any claims women have regarding discrimination. That’s the purpose of adding “gender” in the first place: the erasure of women as a sex class under the law. The conflict in the law can only be resolved by removing “gender” as a legitimate category that is protected from discrimination. That has to be the goal.
There's nothing more concrete than the body. Anybody with one functioning eyeball and half a brain understands the disparity, unfairness and utter madness of pretending that there is no biological male advantage in sports. One has to be in a state of complete ideological delusion to assert otherwise.
Watching a woman get socked in the face and knocked to the ground with a volleyball that was spiked all the way across to the other side of the court by a man who towers over his competitors...well, it makes things obvious.
Say whatever you like about "gender," but women are women, and men are men.
Competitive female athletes have special traits: they're indefatigable, they're fighters, they're tough, they're persistent, they push through pain and exhaustion, and obviously, they're team players. They rely on their sisters, they cherish each other, and they have each others' backs. This is the definition of feminism.
When I saw the righteous, fearless way Riley Gaines responded to the attempt of the sports world and trans activists to bully and silence her, and then the way female athletes stepped up to create activist groups, rent a bus and travel across the country to talk about the issue, it occurred to me that these were the women who would take this to the mainstream. Trans activists use intimidation and bullying to get those in power to acquiesce to their demands. They have now met their match.
Imagine an entire country of female athletes refusing to "compete" in a rigged system. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Applause and gratitude to these magnificent young women. It is not the least bit fair that they should have had to forfeit, which makes their already principled stance even more admirable. What we are seeing from Kara’s brilliant FFS Fridays series is that there is no end to courageous, stalwart women and girls. 💕💕💕💕💕
It’s in no way obvious from the constitutional provision that Fleming has any legal right to play on the women’s team. Non-“trans” males are barred from all women’s teams, and players in wheelchairs from marathons , despite the provisions on sex and disability. Courts must decide what constitutes “discrimination” on the basis of X — but it surely can’t just mean disparate treatment. Unfortunately a Supreme Court majority followed Gorsuch into hopeless confusion.
History will remember these women for their courage. They're setting the example for all of us, and I hope they know how much support and admiration they have out here!
Agree with AlexEsq and others noting it that the language builds in an inherent conflict. Turns out, BTW, that the existing NY Human Rights Law contains the same problem—that is, while it doesn’t redefine sex to include GI/GE, it adds GI/GE to the listed of protected categories. So we already have a problem, which Prop 1 can only make worse.
Another “interesting” thing about the existing law is this clause: “Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent the barring of any person, because of the sex of such person, from places of public accommodation, resort or amusement if the division grants an exemption based on bona fide considerations of public policy; nor shall this subdivision apply to the rental of rooms in a housing accommodation which restricts such rental to individuals of one sex.”
This clause, which contains at least some basis for allowing single-sex spaces, is not present in Prop 1.
Someone much more versed would have to weigh in on this properly, but here’s why I think that clause is in the NY Human Rights Law. That is, the language of the statute prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That works well if we are talking about equal rights for employment, eg, where we want men and women to be treated equally. But if we are talking about women’s sports or preservation of single-sex spaces, then we need an affirmative right to be able to discriminate on the basis of sex. If I am understanding the current law correctly, then Prop 1, in addition to all the other harms it does, by omitting that clause wipes out any ability to discriminate to preserve single-sex spaces and sports. (And, as we know, redefining sex to include GI/GE does that also, so a double whammy.)
I am really concerned Prop 1 is going to pass unless we can reach enough Ds and D-leaning voters who, once they are made aware of what lurks in the language, will see the light. (This poll was from March, so hopefully things have changed, but, back then: “According to a Gothamist article published in March, 71% of New York voters supported the amendment, including 82% of Democrats, 70% of unaffiliated voters and 51% of Republicans.”)
This is where gender identity becomes a religion. As if identifying as a woman, makes you female. Biology is real. Asking women to uphold this lie, to be polite and support the man, while risking their health and well being is insanity. Bravo to the brave bunch of female athletes. Their display of courage will spread like a wildfire.
I think Kara has pointed out this legal contradiction elsewhere, but in this case it's glaring.
That is: the university cites a nondiscrimination policy that includes no discrimination based on sex and also no discrimination based on gender (identity). If you favor the gender identity THEN you discriminate against sex-class. If you favor sex-class then you discriminate against gender identity. There's an overt conflict here in the law.
Exactly what I was going to say: the University is insisting upon discriminating against these athletes on the basis of sex.
Someone has got to sue these schools over this.
Just like the Satanic panic, this Trans panic will be ended by lawsuits.
We must assume that the law was written for the express purpose of creating the overt conflict that nullifies any claims women have regarding discrimination. That’s the purpose of adding “gender” in the first place: the erasure of women as a sex class under the law. The conflict in the law can only be resolved by removing “gender” as a legitimate category that is protected from discrimination. That has to be the goal.
Kara, Brilliant choice for FFS! We all stand with the Wolf Pack!
There's nothing more concrete than the body. Anybody with one functioning eyeball and half a brain understands the disparity, unfairness and utter madness of pretending that there is no biological male advantage in sports. One has to be in a state of complete ideological delusion to assert otherwise.
Watching a woman get socked in the face and knocked to the ground with a volleyball that was spiked all the way across to the other side of the court by a man who towers over his competitors...well, it makes things obvious.
Say whatever you like about "gender," but women are women, and men are men.
Competitive female athletes have special traits: they're indefatigable, they're fighters, they're tough, they're persistent, they push through pain and exhaustion, and obviously, they're team players. They rely on their sisters, they cherish each other, and they have each others' backs. This is the definition of feminism.
When I saw the righteous, fearless way Riley Gaines responded to the attempt of the sports world and trans activists to bully and silence her, and then the way female athletes stepped up to create activist groups, rent a bus and travel across the country to talk about the issue, it occurred to me that these were the women who would take this to the mainstream. Trans activists use intimidation and bullying to get those in power to acquiesce to their demands. They have now met their match.
Imagine an entire country of female athletes refusing to "compete" in a rigged system. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
💯❤️
Applause and gratitude to these magnificent young women. It is not the least bit fair that they should have had to forfeit, which makes their already principled stance even more admirable. What we are seeing from Kara’s brilliant FFS Fridays series is that there is no end to courageous, stalwart women and girls. 💕💕💕💕💕
It’s in no way obvious from the constitutional provision that Fleming has any legal right to play on the women’s team. Non-“trans” males are barred from all women’s teams, and players in wheelchairs from marathons , despite the provisions on sex and disability. Courts must decide what constitutes “discrimination” on the basis of X — but it surely can’t just mean disparate treatment. Unfortunately a Supreme Court majority followed Gorsuch into hopeless confusion.
“Unfortunately a Supreme Court majority followed Gorsuch into hopeless confusion.”💯💯💯💯💯
So proud of the Wolf Pack, and of Kara Dansky's devotion to fairness in women's sports.
History will remember these women for their courage. They're setting the example for all of us, and I hope they know how much support and admiration they have out here!
Agree with AlexEsq and others noting it that the language builds in an inherent conflict. Turns out, BTW, that the existing NY Human Rights Law contains the same problem—that is, while it doesn’t redefine sex to include GI/GE, it adds GI/GE to the listed of protected categories. So we already have a problem, which Prop 1 can only make worse.
Another “interesting” thing about the existing law is this clause: “Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent the barring of any person, because of the sex of such person, from places of public accommodation, resort or amusement if the division grants an exemption based on bona fide considerations of public policy; nor shall this subdivision apply to the rental of rooms in a housing accommodation which restricts such rental to individuals of one sex.”
This clause, which contains at least some basis for allowing single-sex spaces, is not present in Prop 1.
Someone much more versed would have to weigh in on this properly, but here’s why I think that clause is in the NY Human Rights Law. That is, the language of the statute prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That works well if we are talking about equal rights for employment, eg, where we want men and women to be treated equally. But if we are talking about women’s sports or preservation of single-sex spaces, then we need an affirmative right to be able to discriminate on the basis of sex. If I am understanding the current law correctly, then Prop 1, in addition to all the other harms it does, by omitting that clause wipes out any ability to discriminate to preserve single-sex spaces and sports. (And, as we know, redefining sex to include GI/GE does that also, so a double whammy.)
I am really concerned Prop 1 is going to pass unless we can reach enough Ds and D-leaning voters who, once they are made aware of what lurks in the language, will see the light. (This poll was from March, so hopefully things have changed, but, back then: “According to a Gothamist article published in March, 71% of New York voters supported the amendment, including 82% of Democrats, 70% of unaffiliated voters and 51% of Republicans.”)