And it’s because of this confusion that the majority of the public doesn’t understand what the hell is going on. This is really not good faith legislation. For half the citizens in this country do not understand what they could lose come 8/1/24. It’s tricky and deceptive at best. Most people don’t even know what Title IX is, and the Gynophobic democrats have done a great PR job to make this a “Republican issue.” How ironic that the people they say hate women are the only ones standing up for them! My job is not to accommodate men in my female spaces. Fuck that! I am not an open category, an abstract concept of interchangeable parts. I’m a woman. A natural construct, connected to the cycles of the moon and the flow of the tides. I will not speak the language of the cult.
First, amazing news! Thanks for the encouraging report. As a California resident, I'm worried about the same things Anna just raised below. On the one hand, Biden is easily steamrolled by the 'trans'/AGP lobbyists. On the other, Gov. Newsom, while ever eager to pander to that lobby, also seems to have a functioning spidey sense about the Dems' propensity for electoral self-harm over this issue. I'd be very interested in your prediction, Kara.
You’re optimistic that the Administration will withdraw the proposed rule changes? That other courts will block them? Please elaborate.
Thus far, the Biden administration doesn’t seem to be willing to accept that the majority of voters are opposed to men in women’s sports. I’m worried he will remain clueless and will allow his staff to move forward in those circuits where we can assume that the courts will not block them, which cover the most populous states.
Here's the thing: if even 1 judge in the remaining cases rules in favor of the new regs, they can appeal to the Circuit courts then SCOTUS, where judges CAN issue an injunction for the whole country including the blue states. 1 loss now will make a bigger victory possible later!
True, but the Supreme Court is notoriously slow and fickle about the cases it accepts. And then there’s that footnote in Bostock. I’m not optimistic. Maybe Kara will weigh in.
That footnote is priceless, as is your comment, Kara, that “I’m happy to see the Biden Administration concede that there are two sexes.” That concession is right up there with Tony Blair’s declaration on the subject. What a joke these people have become. While I do not, myself, tend toward optimism, I am always delighted when you do, Kara, and I hope you are right!
It may be ironic, but I believe we need 1 of the remaining ~5 judges to rule in favor of the new Title IX regs, in order to create a conflict that will go to an Appeals Circuit and SCOTUS. At those levels, they CAN issue injunctions that cover the whole country.
Otherwise, we'll likely be left with a red-purple state/blue state divide on Title IX, at least until sane folks in the blue states come up with grounds to sue without their state government's help.
I'd be willing to bet that the Biden admin won't appeal these injunctions. They can already see where this is going.
"When I say that 'gender identity' is vacuous, sexist, and homophobic, I mean first that it really doesn’t have any coherent meaning worth protecting in the law. . . But sex is real in a material sense and if public policy is going to be based on material reality, it needs to acknowledge that. When I say 'gender identity' is sexist, I mean that it obliterates the material reality of sex, making it impossible to protect women and girls as a sex class."
Precisely!
"Gender" is one of today's great paradoxes. On the one hand, the trans industrial complex insists that gender is real in a material sense and demands that all our institutions fall in line accordingly.
On the other hand, gender is really nothing more than a set of scientifically baseless ideas that originated in the minds of certain disaffected philosophers in the late 20th century. Judith Butler's output isn't based on systematic observations of human behavior in the field the way an anthropologist's or sociologist's would be. Rather, she peers deeply into the depths of her own inner space and projects her thoughts onto society.
Yet the idea of gender somehow managed to give birth to a pernicious ideology that has captured hearts and minds on the left side of the political spectrum throughout much of the Western world. It hasn't helped that progressive elites have concurred with the originators' characterization of themselves as "theorists." Ex-post-facto attempts to shore up so-called gender theory with scientific findings have created further confusion in the mind of a credulous and partisan public desperate to help save "trans kids."
It's great that scholars such as Lisa Littman are undermining gender identity ideology with their studies of human behavior. However, it is equally important that gender critical philosophers focus on attacking the scholarship of Butler and her ilk in order to show that gender as it is conceived of today is as fictitious as Santa.
Kara, you are simply fantastic! Your update for Title IX is excellent, such clear and powerful writing! This needs to be shared with every news source that either avoids reporting about Title IX, lots of cowards, or, like NPR and PBS (once strong, stalwart allies of women), has been captured by the gender ideology insanity.
Always a good read. I enjoy mushroom identities. The word identity and identify, and sex are entertwined jn a strange way. Identity is a persistent fact. I was trying to think of what persistent features can we observe which are human identity, humans have and it boils down to very few things. Genetics are a persistent fact, and your genes drive observably permanent iris structure, fingerprints, blood type and sex. Bone structure changes slightly, weight varies, hair color and density.
“I identify as” is meaningless, or it only means “I fantasize being” unless it refers to perhaps an iris. But nobody would say “I identify” as blue-eyed, you only say “I am brown-eyed, I am a woman.”
“I identify” as something means literally that you “aren’t” that something.
It seems to connote the quality of being, but I only signifies not being.
And it’s because of this confusion that the majority of the public doesn’t understand what the hell is going on. This is really not good faith legislation. For half the citizens in this country do not understand what they could lose come 8/1/24. It’s tricky and deceptive at best. Most people don’t even know what Title IX is, and the Gynophobic democrats have done a great PR job to make this a “Republican issue.” How ironic that the people they say hate women are the only ones standing up for them! My job is not to accommodate men in my female spaces. Fuck that! I am not an open category, an abstract concept of interchangeable parts. I’m a woman. A natural construct, connected to the cycles of the moon and the flow of the tides. I will not speak the language of the cult.
Please give my thanks to all who worked on this with you!
First, amazing news! Thanks for the encouraging report. As a California resident, I'm worried about the same things Anna just raised below. On the one hand, Biden is easily steamrolled by the 'trans'/AGP lobbyists. On the other, Gov. Newsom, while ever eager to pander to that lobby, also seems to have a functioning spidey sense about the Dems' propensity for electoral self-harm over this issue. I'd be very interested in your prediction, Kara.
You’re optimistic that the Administration will withdraw the proposed rule changes? That other courts will block them? Please elaborate.
Thus far, the Biden administration doesn’t seem to be willing to accept that the majority of voters are opposed to men in women’s sports. I’m worried he will remain clueless and will allow his staff to move forward in those circuits where we can assume that the courts will not block them, which cover the most populous states.
I have the same concern. There's no good faith on this issue where the Democrats are concerned.
Here's the thing: if even 1 judge in the remaining cases rules in favor of the new regs, they can appeal to the Circuit courts then SCOTUS, where judges CAN issue an injunction for the whole country including the blue states. 1 loss now will make a bigger victory possible later!
True, but the Supreme Court is notoriously slow and fickle about the cases it accepts. And then there’s that footnote in Bostock. I’m not optimistic. Maybe Kara will weigh in.
That footnote is priceless, as is your comment, Kara, that “I’m happy to see the Biden Administration concede that there are two sexes.” That concession is right up there with Tony Blair’s declaration on the subject. What a joke these people have become. While I do not, myself, tend toward optimism, I am always delighted when you do, Kara, and I hope you are right!
It may be ironic, but I believe we need 1 of the remaining ~5 judges to rule in favor of the new Title IX regs, in order to create a conflict that will go to an Appeals Circuit and SCOTUS. At those levels, they CAN issue injunctions that cover the whole country.
Otherwise, we'll likely be left with a red-purple state/blue state divide on Title IX, at least until sane folks in the blue states come up with grounds to sue without their state government's help.
I'd be willing to bet that the Biden admin won't appeal these injunctions. They can already see where this is going.
"When I say that 'gender identity' is vacuous, sexist, and homophobic, I mean first that it really doesn’t have any coherent meaning worth protecting in the law. . . But sex is real in a material sense and if public policy is going to be based on material reality, it needs to acknowledge that. When I say 'gender identity' is sexist, I mean that it obliterates the material reality of sex, making it impossible to protect women and girls as a sex class."
Precisely!
"Gender" is one of today's great paradoxes. On the one hand, the trans industrial complex insists that gender is real in a material sense and demands that all our institutions fall in line accordingly.
On the other hand, gender is really nothing more than a set of scientifically baseless ideas that originated in the minds of certain disaffected philosophers in the late 20th century. Judith Butler's output isn't based on systematic observations of human behavior in the field the way an anthropologist's or sociologist's would be. Rather, she peers deeply into the depths of her own inner space and projects her thoughts onto society.
Yet the idea of gender somehow managed to give birth to a pernicious ideology that has captured hearts and minds on the left side of the political spectrum throughout much of the Western world. It hasn't helped that progressive elites have concurred with the originators' characterization of themselves as "theorists." Ex-post-facto attempts to shore up so-called gender theory with scientific findings have created further confusion in the mind of a credulous and partisan public desperate to help save "trans kids."
It's great that scholars such as Lisa Littman are undermining gender identity ideology with their studies of human behavior. However, it is equally important that gender critical philosophers focus on attacking the scholarship of Butler and her ilk in order to show that gender as it is conceived of today is as fictitious as Santa.
Kara, you are simply fantastic! Your update for Title IX is excellent, such clear and powerful writing! This needs to be shared with every news source that either avoids reporting about Title IX, lots of cowards, or, like NPR and PBS (once strong, stalwart allies of women), has been captured by the gender ideology insanity.
Always a good read. I enjoy mushroom identities. The word identity and identify, and sex are entertwined jn a strange way. Identity is a persistent fact. I was trying to think of what persistent features can we observe which are human identity, humans have and it boils down to very few things. Genetics are a persistent fact, and your genes drive observably permanent iris structure, fingerprints, blood type and sex. Bone structure changes slightly, weight varies, hair color and density.
“I identify as” is meaningless, or it only means “I fantasize being” unless it refers to perhaps an iris. But nobody would say “I identify” as blue-eyed, you only say “I am brown-eyed, I am a woman.”
“I identify” as something means literally that you “aren’t” that something.
It seems to connote the quality of being, but I only signifies not being.
Fascinating.