June 16, 2022 This post is available to paid subscribers only. As always, thank you for your generous support, which helps me continue doing this work. EDIT: This post is being updated as of June 12, 2023, to be made freely available and shareable. The current post contains some minor, non-substantive edits from the post that was originally published in June 2022.
I would like to add here that Kara Dansky fully supports the concept of sexual orientations. In other words, the LGB and S for straight. I don’t like to see homophobic comments on a gender critical site.
Jun 17, 2022·edited Jun 17, 2022Liked by Kara Dansky
Thank you for all that you are doing, for this terrific post, and for the invitation to participate in the conversation.
I do not have your experience or expertise in this legal arena (my legal experience is different), but like many thinking people, I have given these issues considerably time, study and thought; I hope some of my comments are both sufficiently-informed and useful.
I agree entirely with WoLF’s response to the order: the Administration’s efforts to protect people who do not conform to sex-based stereotypes have the result of inappropriately asserting medical/clinical treatment protocols that sexualize children and fail to address the mental health challenges of both adults and children.
With respect to “the rot”:
Yes, sex-denialism is a root of the problem (as well as political pandering). Yes, the meaning, and objective reality, of “gender identity” is assumed rather than defined in the order.
My concern is how we (opponents of sex-denialism) can best advocate against this. I wonder if describing “gender identity” as “amorphous” is the most persuasive we can be. The problem with “gender identity” is not that it is “without a clearly defined shape or form”, but that it does not do the work that language must do in law (describe objective, real world things), and it is not the kind of thing that the law properly reaches (real, objective things). “Gender identity” is vague for legal purposes.
Sex is objectively real (regardless of the ACLU’s current nonsense). So – if “gender identity” were defined in terms of behaviors and expectations associated with sex-stereotypes, that might be sufficiently concrete to communicate what the law would need to function properly and effectively – it would not be vague (not just objectively wrong if defined otherwise).
I am sympathetic to objections of lesbian and gay comrades that “queer” is a slur. But I don’t think calling the order homophobic is the most persuasive argument to be made against the term, at least for our purposes (especially when we want to save arguments about homophobia where they really count – medicalization of children). But I think we have to come up with a clear way of describing “queer theory” in terms of how it fails as a vehicle for law: it is not merely offensive to some, but contradicts material reality for all. “Queer theory” uses language in a way that is subjective and purposefully disruptive and unstable – precisely what law cannot do.
If we think the Administration’s order reflects its consumption of “queer theory”, then we can attack that theory directly, in terms of how it fails for law.
Yes, the language of the order repeats the conflation of sex and “gender identity”, which means sex-based protection is compromised. Would it be more persuasive to demonstrate how the Admiinistration’s arguments depend on a denial of biology and clear failure to account for how using a “gender ideology” framework to protect people vulnerable to discrimination on the basis of non-conformity to sex-stereotypes (ie. men who behave like women, or women who behave like men, or people who mix it up) would also protect the rest of us vulnerable on account of sex and sexual orientation?
I’m so glad that WDU-USA has filed it’s amicus brief in Tennessee v. Department of Education. We’ve known for decades that 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause arguments were the right constitutional arguments to make to protect women from sex-based discrimination. I wouldn’t presume to question your assessment of the Administration’s exhaustive use of executive power and federal administrative law. Have we exhausted the ways to persuasively explain this particular issue publicly than have been used in the past? Your podcast following the disclosure of Justice Alito’s proposed opinion re: Roe v Wade was terrific. I’d love to see that worked into something bigger for wide public consumption, with clear articulation of the ways the 14th Amendment equal protection actually works.
I concur with your assessment of the Order’s recommendations for policies, assessments and studies. It’s political virtue signaling. I want to know how the Administration’s recommendations comport with well-established medical scientific research standards, including how the policies, assessments and studies take into account bad results, measurable bad results, including reports from desistors and detransitioners. I want to advocate effectively about this, from a public policy point of view. How can we communicate, and even amplify, the concerns of many medical professionals, and get those concerns to be included in the Adminisration’s process?
Thank you for sharing Bill Moyer’s MAP information. A lot of life has happened between hearing about it when it was published (the year my second son was born), and today. I’m looking forward to chewing over it all soon. Yes, I think you are right – we are in the neighborhood of Stage 3, and that is very encouraging. Thank you and Lauren for all you’ve contributed to getting the American end of the movement to where we are. Fingers crossed your assessment of how we can move forward successfully is correct. I’m outraged and unafraid. I’m a signatory, and volunteering in the PA chapter of WDI-USA. What else can I do to move us forward?
As a person of East European Jewish ancestry, I'm as keenly interested in protection of religious freedom as anyone - in general. I understand how upsetting the recent decision in the Yeshiva University case must be to many religious people, and to folks affiliated with religious educational institutions. Describing the decision as "cultural rape" is an unproductive exaggeration of the situation, in my opinion, and will only prevent calm reflection about how to achieve reversal on appeal. Perhaps reading more widely about how these cases finish after U.S. Supreme Court review will help allay some of your concerns? https://www.voanews.com/a/u-s-supreme-court-takes-up-clash-between-religion-and-lgbt-rights/6454098.html. OR
It looks like my comment got cut off a bit. Just wanted to say that I think the Biden administration/TRAs are threatened and wrote the order because of that. The last thing I was trying to say was that the sheer number of lawsuits from the harm of children’s bodies will slow down the gender ideology movement. It will take both activism and natural consequences. There is reason for a positive outlook.
I agree completely, Barbara. Malpractice litigation will eventually force the "gender affirmation industry" (medical, psychotherapeutic, pharmacological) to take a more evidence-based approach to treatment of the range of mental health conditions currently described as "gender dysphoria". But many, many people - minors and adults - will be damaged in the interim. I'm up for finding effective ways to accelerate the changes we know must happen.
I was quite interested in the Movement Action Plan, because in Canada we appear to be mired somewhere between stages 1 and 2, and many women are in despair. Since self-id became the law of the land here in 2017 with the passage of Bill C-16, and the Trudeau government responded to a petition, presented in Parliament, demanding that it make public the Gender Based Analysis (GBA) required by law before such legislation can be tabled, with a version so redacted as to be both a joke and useless, our group efforts have been few and mostly ineffective. Powerhouse prisoner advocate Heather Mason has organized multiple prison protests across the country, but few Canadians know anything about the issue because of the media blackout. Meanwhile children are sterilized and mutilated, parents have lost all rights to make decisions in the best interests of their children, courts require that lawyers and their clients state their pronouns, and universities appoint chairs of transgender studies. Yes, we despair, and we have no idea how we will get to stage 3, much less stage 4. Consider yourselves lucky that you have women's groups and state governments that are fighting back, and some media who will cover it. We have nothing.
One thing that makes this battle unique is that our opposition uses the guise of "civil rights" and "human rights." I think to get to stage 4 we need to somehow make it clear to the public - without the help of the mainstream media - that this "rainbow" acronym is fraudulant movement,
a hijacking of real civil right and human rights. People don't want to be mean, bigoted, or "on the wrong side of history."
I think you’re right, Kara. I was watching the joint statement of WoLF and FPA, and thinking, but how is this new Executive Order any different from the first one? No “conversion” therapy? Talk therapy, anything other than affirmation, is already forbidden already! Nothing new because they covered everything the first time around.
Forced teaming was always the case, starting when activists added the T to the LGB.
For the third point, I think it differs from Bill Moyer’s stages here and there. Stage One is the normal state of affairs, but gender ideology is not that. The advancement of women’s rights was this normal. Gender ideology is trying to take them away. So I don’t agree totally with this comparison. But it will end in the same way. There is reason for optimism for a variety of reasons. First is the rise in activism to protect women’s sports, such as ICONS. Putting all the orgs together to affect greater change. And then Lia Thomas. I believe the public is watching, and this will be reflected in the Midterms. And then there is the fact that 18 states have laws protecting women’s sports, and some with laws protecting children. And then there will be all the lawsuits for harming children’s bodies. Some of it will be due to activism, and some consequences. I also agree there is reason to have a positive outlook.
Currently going over the Exec Order with the lawyer in the house and will have more to say soon. My concerns are with the wording in the Background Press call (“Full force of the Federal government”), with the lack of a clear definition of ‘conversion therapy’ while calling for the US government to promote a far-reaching ban on what may be nothing more than psychotherapy, and with the general hubris of Biden’s administration with respect to thinking it has the power to reverse legislation at the state level.
I do think much of this is posturing, but the fact that so much effort is going into posturing still concerns me. And, of course, the EO is being covered positively by the MSM.
You make an interesting point about “conversion therapy.” Big Psych has a bad history in attempting to make lesbians and gay men straight. But it’s far from settled that sexual attraction is innate/immutable. That it is immutable was a legal invention in pursuit of decriminalization and marriage equality. It’s an open secret that some lesbians have “converted” themselves because they could no longer bear to be with men. That said, abusive conversion attempts imposed by institutions or families, whether or not religious in motivation, need prohibition IMO.
Radical feminists seek liberation for all women, regardless of faith. An exemption from “gender identity” laws on religious grounds only will only protect religious women. And a campaign for exemption based only on religion will not get wide support. But a religious exemption is not inconsistent with other arguments. That said, an anti-lesbian campaign will make it hard to collaborate. We stand with all women, including observant Jews, and including lesbians.
I like your perspective that the EO is a sign the misogynist groomers are feeling panic. It was extremely hopeful and gratifying to listen to the FPA and WoLF find common ground and join forces to protect children. Keep up the great work.
I am so happy that Kara opened up comments! Kara, if you happen to read this you are doing amazing work fighting for the rights privacy and safety of women and girls. I've been knee deep in "gender ideology" since I pulled my younger daughter (now age 12) out of her first grade class (this was *I think* in 2017) because her 1st grade teacher (this was a public charter school in San Jose, CA) wanted - and did - a two week curriculum on transgenderism (for 6-7 year olds, which *at the time* was not at all normal and I thought shocking) with Jazz Jennings being the person of interested. I have two girls ages 14 and 12 and my son is 8 and the gender woo is in your face, everywhere!!!
I would like to add here that Kara Dansky fully supports the concept of sexual orientations. In other words, the LGB and S for straight. I don’t like to see homophobic comments on a gender critical site.
Thank you for all that you are doing, for this terrific post, and for the invitation to participate in the conversation.
I do not have your experience or expertise in this legal arena (my legal experience is different), but like many thinking people, I have given these issues considerably time, study and thought; I hope some of my comments are both sufficiently-informed and useful.
I agree entirely with WoLF’s response to the order: the Administration’s efforts to protect people who do not conform to sex-based stereotypes have the result of inappropriately asserting medical/clinical treatment protocols that sexualize children and fail to address the mental health challenges of both adults and children.
With respect to “the rot”:
Yes, sex-denialism is a root of the problem (as well as political pandering). Yes, the meaning, and objective reality, of “gender identity” is assumed rather than defined in the order.
My concern is how we (opponents of sex-denialism) can best advocate against this. I wonder if describing “gender identity” as “amorphous” is the most persuasive we can be. The problem with “gender identity” is not that it is “without a clearly defined shape or form”, but that it does not do the work that language must do in law (describe objective, real world things), and it is not the kind of thing that the law properly reaches (real, objective things). “Gender identity” is vague for legal purposes.
Sex is objectively real (regardless of the ACLU’s current nonsense). So – if “gender identity” were defined in terms of behaviors and expectations associated with sex-stereotypes, that might be sufficiently concrete to communicate what the law would need to function properly and effectively – it would not be vague (not just objectively wrong if defined otherwise).
I am sympathetic to objections of lesbian and gay comrades that “queer” is a slur. But I don’t think calling the order homophobic is the most persuasive argument to be made against the term, at least for our purposes (especially when we want to save arguments about homophobia where they really count – medicalization of children). But I think we have to come up with a clear way of describing “queer theory” in terms of how it fails as a vehicle for law: it is not merely offensive to some, but contradicts material reality for all. “Queer theory” uses language in a way that is subjective and purposefully disruptive and unstable – precisely what law cannot do.
If we think the Administration’s order reflects its consumption of “queer theory”, then we can attack that theory directly, in terms of how it fails for law.
Yes, the language of the order repeats the conflation of sex and “gender identity”, which means sex-based protection is compromised. Would it be more persuasive to demonstrate how the Admiinistration’s arguments depend on a denial of biology and clear failure to account for how using a “gender ideology” framework to protect people vulnerable to discrimination on the basis of non-conformity to sex-stereotypes (ie. men who behave like women, or women who behave like men, or people who mix it up) would also protect the rest of us vulnerable on account of sex and sexual orientation?
I’m so glad that WDU-USA has filed it’s amicus brief in Tennessee v. Department of Education. We’ve known for decades that 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause arguments were the right constitutional arguments to make to protect women from sex-based discrimination. I wouldn’t presume to question your assessment of the Administration’s exhaustive use of executive power and federal administrative law. Have we exhausted the ways to persuasively explain this particular issue publicly than have been used in the past? Your podcast following the disclosure of Justice Alito’s proposed opinion re: Roe v Wade was terrific. I’d love to see that worked into something bigger for wide public consumption, with clear articulation of the ways the 14th Amendment equal protection actually works.
I concur with your assessment of the Order’s recommendations for policies, assessments and studies. It’s political virtue signaling. I want to know how the Administration’s recommendations comport with well-established medical scientific research standards, including how the policies, assessments and studies take into account bad results, measurable bad results, including reports from desistors and detransitioners. I want to advocate effectively about this, from a public policy point of view. How can we communicate, and even amplify, the concerns of many medical professionals, and get those concerns to be included in the Adminisration’s process?
Thank you for sharing Bill Moyer’s MAP information. A lot of life has happened between hearing about it when it was published (the year my second son was born), and today. I’m looking forward to chewing over it all soon. Yes, I think you are right – we are in the neighborhood of Stage 3, and that is very encouraging. Thank you and Lauren for all you’ve contributed to getting the American end of the movement to where we are. Fingers crossed your assessment of how we can move forward successfully is correct. I’m outraged and unafraid. I’m a signatory, and volunteering in the PA chapter of WDI-USA. What else can I do to move us forward?
As a person of East European Jewish ancestry, I'm as keenly interested in protection of religious freedom as anyone - in general. I understand how upsetting the recent decision in the Yeshiva University case must be to many religious people, and to folks affiliated with religious educational institutions. Describing the decision as "cultural rape" is an unproductive exaggeration of the situation, in my opinion, and will only prevent calm reflection about how to achieve reversal on appeal. Perhaps reading more widely about how these cases finish after U.S. Supreme Court review will help allay some of your concerns? https://www.voanews.com/a/u-s-supreme-court-takes-up-clash-between-religion-and-lgbt-rights/6454098.html. OR
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/us/supreme-court-gay-rights-foster-care.html
It looks like my comment got cut off a bit. Just wanted to say that I think the Biden administration/TRAs are threatened and wrote the order because of that. The last thing I was trying to say was that the sheer number of lawsuits from the harm of children’s bodies will slow down the gender ideology movement. It will take both activism and natural consequences. There is reason for a positive outlook.
I agree completely, Barbara. Malpractice litigation will eventually force the "gender affirmation industry" (medical, psychotherapeutic, pharmacological) to take a more evidence-based approach to treatment of the range of mental health conditions currently described as "gender dysphoria". But many, many people - minors and adults - will be damaged in the interim. I'm up for finding effective ways to accelerate the changes we know must happen.
I was quite interested in the Movement Action Plan, because in Canada we appear to be mired somewhere between stages 1 and 2, and many women are in despair. Since self-id became the law of the land here in 2017 with the passage of Bill C-16, and the Trudeau government responded to a petition, presented in Parliament, demanding that it make public the Gender Based Analysis (GBA) required by law before such legislation can be tabled, with a version so redacted as to be both a joke and useless, our group efforts have been few and mostly ineffective. Powerhouse prisoner advocate Heather Mason has organized multiple prison protests across the country, but few Canadians know anything about the issue because of the media blackout. Meanwhile children are sterilized and mutilated, parents have lost all rights to make decisions in the best interests of their children, courts require that lawyers and their clients state their pronouns, and universities appoint chairs of transgender studies. Yes, we despair, and we have no idea how we will get to stage 3, much less stage 4. Consider yourselves lucky that you have women's groups and state governments that are fighting back, and some media who will cover it. We have nothing.
One thing that makes this battle unique is that our opposition uses the guise of "civil rights" and "human rights." I think to get to stage 4 we need to somehow make it clear to the public - without the help of the mainstream media - that this "rainbow" acronym is fraudulant movement,
a hijacking of real civil right and human rights. People don't want to be mean, bigoted, or "on the wrong side of history."
I think you’re right, Kara. I was watching the joint statement of WoLF and FPA, and thinking, but how is this new Executive Order any different from the first one? No “conversion” therapy? Talk therapy, anything other than affirmation, is already forbidden already! Nothing new because they covered everything the first time around.
Forced teaming was always the case, starting when activists added the T to the LGB.
For the third point, I think it differs from Bill Moyer’s stages here and there. Stage One is the normal state of affairs, but gender ideology is not that. The advancement of women’s rights was this normal. Gender ideology is trying to take them away. So I don’t agree totally with this comparison. But it will end in the same way. There is reason for optimism for a variety of reasons. First is the rise in activism to protect women’s sports, such as ICONS. Putting all the orgs together to affect greater change. And then Lia Thomas. I believe the public is watching, and this will be reflected in the Midterms. And then there is the fact that 18 states have laws protecting women’s sports, and some with laws protecting children. And then there will be all the lawsuits for harming children’s bodies. Some of it will be due to activism, and some consequences. I also agree there is reason to have a positive outlook.
I hope you’re right, Kara. And good work!
Currently going over the Exec Order with the lawyer in the house and will have more to say soon. My concerns are with the wording in the Background Press call (“Full force of the Federal government”), with the lack of a clear definition of ‘conversion therapy’ while calling for the US government to promote a far-reaching ban on what may be nothing more than psychotherapy, and with the general hubris of Biden’s administration with respect to thinking it has the power to reverse legislation at the state level.
I do think much of this is posturing, but the fact that so much effort is going into posturing still concerns me. And, of course, the EO is being covered positively by the MSM.
More later.
Christina
You make an interesting point about “conversion therapy.” Big Psych has a bad history in attempting to make lesbians and gay men straight. But it’s far from settled that sexual attraction is innate/immutable. That it is immutable was a legal invention in pursuit of decriminalization and marriage equality. It’s an open secret that some lesbians have “converted” themselves because they could no longer bear to be with men. That said, abusive conversion attempts imposed by institutions or families, whether or not religious in motivation, need prohibition IMO.
Radical feminists seek liberation for all women, regardless of faith. An exemption from “gender identity” laws on religious grounds only will only protect religious women. And a campaign for exemption based only on religion will not get wide support. But a religious exemption is not inconsistent with other arguments. That said, an anti-lesbian campaign will make it hard to collaborate. We stand with all women, including observant Jews, and including lesbians.
I like your perspective that the EO is a sign the misogynist groomers are feeling panic. It was extremely hopeful and gratifying to listen to the FPA and WoLF find common ground and join forces to protect children. Keep up the great work.
I am so happy that Kara opened up comments! Kara, if you happen to read this you are doing amazing work fighting for the rights privacy and safety of women and girls. I've been knee deep in "gender ideology" since I pulled my younger daughter (now age 12) out of her first grade class (this was *I think* in 2017) because her 1st grade teacher (this was a public charter school in San Jose, CA) wanted - and did - a two week curriculum on transgenderism (for 6-7 year olds, which *at the time* was not at all normal and I thought shocking) with Jazz Jennings being the person of interested. I have two girls ages 14 and 12 and my son is 8 and the gender woo is in your face, everywhere!!!