Affifliated with Di-Ag is a good question. I'm so far reserving judgment on them. They are a 501(c)3 and so must be "non partisan". They are actively soliciting money with no explanation of what they will do with it.
Do you mean that you're reserving judgment on Di-Ag? I would think any new organization may need a bit of $ just for upkeep (if that's the right word). But I agree, it's maybe good to find out before you contribute to them.
Yes, reserving judgment on Di-Ag. I simply do not understand the need for another nonprofit, but one that has "Democrat" in its name, but which cannot by law endorse candidates or legislation or policies. We already have Genspect for non-partisan info.
I think a gender-realist political organization on the left, one that pushes on Democrats in office and endorses gender-realist candidates and legislation, would be a good thing to have, but that can't be a 501(c)3.
Mark: It occurs to me that HRC, as one example, is a 501c3 but seems to do a fair bit of lobbying for legislation (not candidates, so far as I know). I don’t know what trips the IRS wire, but it does seem DIAG should have some leeway here. Any thoughts on that? (While I have signed up to get notification of what DIAG is working on, I, too, am reserving judgment.)
DIAG might just be a place to go online for Democrats (women only?) to share their thoughts on the ill effects of transgenderism, though I don't know for sure of course. They keep a low profile, and some members seem to prefer being anonymous. Two were interviewed recently on a YT channel the name of which escapes me now (sorry!). In addition to all the things that had already made people's lives a challenge, I can't forgive the way this gender mess has added even more baggage. Why did the Democrats have to roll over for it all?! Well, okay, because of donors, mainly.
I recently learned that DIAG has gone through strategic planning and I think the mission may widen. If you haven’t seen it, they put up a substack post on this recently and responded to questions in the comments that indicated this. I signed up, but only to get notifications of their progress on this. I’m glad they are there, and potentially expanding their brief. For myself, I am looking for a group of Democrats to support that will push for legislative change, and I believe 501c3s can do that, albeit within limits. Sex Matters, in the UK, is a good model for what I am looking for.
I joined DIAG but I agree it’s not clear what they’re doing. I’m giving them grace as newbies, but I’m starting to wonder. They have a concept, but actions are needed.
Sending love and gratitude from NZ to you Kara, a leading feminist voice of our times, and all the Left-leaning, right-thinking women. They, the traitors to women, had to be told, sad day that it is even so. Tough times indeed, but we will prevail. XX
"According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence:
One in 4 women experience severe intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner sexual violence, and/or intimate partner stalking with impacts such as injury, fearfulness, post-traumatic stress disorder, and death.
One in 7 women have been seriously injured by a male intimate partner.
One in 10 women have been raped by a male intimate partner.
One in 4 women have been victims of severe physical violence, for example, beating, burning, or strangling, by a male intimate partner."
I love the Declaration overall, but have to say that I am skeptical about a couple of the above statements.
The fact that severe IPV is more prevalent among black than among white female Americans means that averaging the rates of IPV for those two populations will yield misleadingly high numbers for women in general. According to the NIH, rates of intimate partner violence that resulted in police reports are 2-3 times as high among black and Hispanic female victims as among white victims.
The frequency and severity of domestic violence is known to involve interactional effects between sex, age, ethnicity, use of alcohol or other disinhibiting drugs, poverty, and other factors.
The article cited below studied rates of "minor" and "severe" IPV among couples of various Asian ethnicities living in the U.S. The introduction to the study estimates "severe" IPV by current partners as affecting about 5.5% of women in general (not exclusively Asian). The results of the study were that female Asian victims of various ethnicities reported varying rates of severe IPV with all groups reporting less than 1.5% of the number of women in that demographic.
I find your points very interesting and wish that there was more analysis and nuance when it comes to judgement which could easily be affected by racism . Eg I live in England , pass for white but am actually mixed race . I am also Muslim but married to a white Christian . I have found that I am regarded , even by the most 'woke' type women (of any colour) as very lucky because it is assumed that I am safe from domestic violence - because white men don't do it ? Educated men don't do it ? English men don't do it ? All untrue .
Thanks for your reply. I completely agree that we need more analysis of domestic violence from an objective perspective. In the U.S. we currently are unable to explore issues that involve racial disparities with objectivity, because of ideological biases based on racism or "anti-racism." The "anti-racist" crowd is primarily responsible for the censorship and manipulation of objective research.
I love this. Except this, which I had to read three times to be sure I understood it correctly:
All law, policy, and practice should recognize that harmful practices such as … the commercial or altruistic exploitation of women’s reproductive capacity involved in “surrogate” motherhood, are violations of the physical and reproductive integrity of women
I’m pretty sure most Democrats, including me and my partner who just had a child via surrogacy, don’t agree that surrogacy is typically exploitive.
This is terrific, Kara. I have signed.
Thanks, Kara. Such a good idea. Affiliated with Di-Ag? I will read carefully and will no doubt then sign. Hang in there, everyone! ❤️❤️
Affifliated with Di-Ag is a good question. I'm so far reserving judgment on them. They are a 501(c)3 and so must be "non partisan". They are actively soliciting money with no explanation of what they will do with it.
Do you mean that you're reserving judgment on Di-Ag? I would think any new organization may need a bit of $ just for upkeep (if that's the right word). But I agree, it's maybe good to find out before you contribute to them.
Yes, reserving judgment on Di-Ag. I simply do not understand the need for another nonprofit, but one that has "Democrat" in its name, but which cannot by law endorse candidates or legislation or policies. We already have Genspect for non-partisan info.
I think a gender-realist political organization on the left, one that pushes on Democrats in office and endorses gender-realist candidates and legislation, would be a good thing to have, but that can't be a 501(c)3.
Mark: It occurs to me that HRC, as one example, is a 501c3 but seems to do a fair bit of lobbying for legislation (not candidates, so far as I know). I don’t know what trips the IRS wire, but it does seem DIAG should have some leeway here. Any thoughts on that? (While I have signed up to get notification of what DIAG is working on, I, too, am reserving judgment.)
DIAG might just be a place to go online for Democrats (women only?) to share their thoughts on the ill effects of transgenderism, though I don't know for sure of course. They keep a low profile, and some members seem to prefer being anonymous. Two were interviewed recently on a YT channel the name of which escapes me now (sorry!). In addition to all the things that had already made people's lives a challenge, I can't forgive the way this gender mess has added even more baggage. Why did the Democrats have to roll over for it all?! Well, okay, because of donors, mainly.
I recently learned that DIAG has gone through strategic planning and I think the mission may widen. If you haven’t seen it, they put up a substack post on this recently and responded to questions in the comments that indicated this. I signed up, but only to get notifications of their progress on this. I’m glad they are there, and potentially expanding their brief. For myself, I am looking for a group of Democrats to support that will push for legislative change, and I believe 501c3s can do that, albeit within limits. Sex Matters, in the UK, is a good model for what I am looking for.
I joined DIAG but I agree it’s not clear what they’re doing. I’m giving them grace as newbies, but I’m starting to wonder. They have a concept, but actions are needed.
Hi Mark, if you're curious what DIAG has done over the last year, you can read a summary here: https://diagdemocrats.substack.com/p/democrats-heal-thyself
Sending love and gratitude from NZ to you Kara, a leading feminist voice of our times, and all the Left-leaning, right-thinking women. They, the traitors to women, had to be told, sad day that it is even so. Tough times indeed, but we will prevail. XX
wonderfully written document, Kara. thank you. (did you forget to include women's shelters, or did I miss it?)
"According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence:
One in 4 women experience severe intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner sexual violence, and/or intimate partner stalking with impacts such as injury, fearfulness, post-traumatic stress disorder, and death.
One in 7 women have been seriously injured by a male intimate partner.
One in 10 women have been raped by a male intimate partner.
One in 4 women have been victims of severe physical violence, for example, beating, burning, or strangling, by a male intimate partner."
I love the Declaration overall, but have to say that I am skeptical about a couple of the above statements.
The fact that severe IPV is more prevalent among black than among white female Americans means that averaging the rates of IPV for those two populations will yield misleadingly high numbers for women in general. According to the NIH, rates of intimate partner violence that resulted in police reports are 2-3 times as high among black and Hispanic female victims as among white victims.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2757408/#:~:text=Police%2Dreported%20intimate%20partner%20violence%20rates&text=The%20majority%20of%20police%2Dreported,to%20non%2DHispanic%20white%20women.
The frequency and severity of domestic violence is known to involve interactional effects between sex, age, ethnicity, use of alcohol or other disinhibiting drugs, poverty, and other factors.
The article cited below studied rates of "minor" and "severe" IPV among couples of various Asian ethnicities living in the U.S. The introduction to the study estimates "severe" IPV by current partners as affecting about 5.5% of women in general (not exclusively Asian). The results of the study were that female Asian victims of various ethnicities reported varying rates of severe IPV with all groups reporting less than 1.5% of the number of women in that demographic.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4449838/
I find your points very interesting and wish that there was more analysis and nuance when it comes to judgement which could easily be affected by racism . Eg I live in England , pass for white but am actually mixed race . I am also Muslim but married to a white Christian . I have found that I am regarded , even by the most 'woke' type women (of any colour) as very lucky because it is assumed that I am safe from domestic violence - because white men don't do it ? Educated men don't do it ? English men don't do it ? All untrue .
Thanks for your reply. I completely agree that we need more analysis of domestic violence from an objective perspective. In the U.S. we currently are unable to explore issues that involve racial disparities with objectivity, because of ideological biases based on racism or "anti-racism." The "anti-racist" crowd is primarily responsible for the censorship and manipulation of objective research.
We shall overcome.
I love this. Except this, which I had to read three times to be sure I understood it correctly:
All law, policy, and practice should recognize that harmful practices such as … the commercial or altruistic exploitation of women’s reproductive capacity involved in “surrogate” motherhood, are violations of the physical and reproductive integrity of women
I’m pretty sure most Democrats, including me and my partner who just had a child via surrogacy, don’t agree that surrogacy is typically exploitive.
Signed.
Thank you!