The single most stunning response
The Mother of Swimmer video is back up.
At 3:45 she talks about calling the ACLU to ask about the obvious conflict here between women’s rights and…whatever this other thing is. She tried to be respectful, she tried to use the Approved Words.
I made clear that I didn’t want to offend, but pleaded that it seemed there was an obvious conflict here, for women who already have so much less opportunity in sports, to now have to give spaces away to individuals who identify as women. I was met with the single most stunning response I’ve ever received on any issue. [deep breath] I was told that the words “biological” and “genetic” have no business being in a discussion around sex and gender, I was told trans women are women, they’re female, they’re girls, no language that minimizes that point should be tolerated. I was told it was an offensive question, my language was out of date. I was told that sex and gender are equally important and that the ACLU is actively removing “sex” from legal documentation
It’s what???
My hair stood on end when I heard that yesterday, too, but I wanted to listen to the whole thing before flailing at the particulars, and then the video was taken down before I got back to it.
The ACLU is actively removing “sex” from legal documentation – in other words the ACLU is actively and energetically demolishing women’s rights, in full knowledge of what they’re doing. It takes my breath away.
I was told that sex and gender are equally important and that the ACLU is actively removing “sex” from legal documentation and legal language. I tried to gently prod at the preposterous arguments I was hearing, and I was met with an absolute brick wall when she concluded with “Let me tell you with certainty, the ACLU will never represent cis women against women.”
Holy shit. Holy shit holy shit holy shit.
Mother of Swimmer didn’t sleep that night.
Bring on the asteroid.
Humanity has lost its mind.
I have downloaded that video, so if it gets pulled again and anybody wants a copy, get in touch.
If “sex and gender are equally important”, then why is only one being completely erased? I’d be curious to see ACLU’s exact wording on this. If both were being aggressively removed from legal language, at least it would be consistent (if still completely wrong).
#3 Helicam
Answer: they are lying.
Well, at least they’ve come right out and said it – cis women aren’t women. Trans women are the only who can be called just “women” because they are really, really women, while cis women are just…well, uterus havers. Menstruators. Front holes. Cervix owners.
The misogyny is out in the open.
Helicam asked for exact wording, which I can cite.
In the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA64), in Title VII protecting employment for example, it is unlawful to discriminate against an individual “because of” this list of protected characteristics:
Promoters of the Equality Act (EA) say it “completes” the CRA64 by “adding” protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. The public might assume this means the EA would “add” those characteristics to the list like this:
If so, then the word “sex” would still mean the sex binary (as the Supreme Court interpreted “sex” in the CRA64 as recently the 2020 Bostock decision), and we could discuss how some rights may need to be balanced (e.g. between “sex” versus “gender identity”).
But no, in the text of the EA, in Section 7 for employment for example, it says to strike the word “sex” and replace it with the phrase “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity)”. That would make the list:
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that in the EA: 1) The word “sex” no longer means the binary (undoing 50+ years of case law), 2) The word “sex” is undefined (and I see no preamble to define it), and 3) It is not clear how to talk about balancing rights of “sex” (e.g. female sex) versus “gender identity” with the EA word “sex” undefined.
The ACLU is operating in this framework, where the word “sex” is undefined, so they can simply remove it as superfluous, and protect “gender identity” instead.
President Biden signed an Executive Order on his first day in office to apply the EA wording to all federal organizations. So while the EA is not yet the law for everyone, there is broad support for the EA, including the Biden administration.
Kara Dansky’s book The Abolition of Sex has much more to say along these lines. I have a copy, but I have not read it yet.
[…] a comment by Dave Ricks on The single most stunning […]
And just like that … The ACLU is off my list for donations.