Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Nancy Pelosi Introduces Equality Act to Mandate Compliance to Transexual Demands

Hat tip to Sense of Events where Donald Sensing links to a Heritage Foundation post on the so-called equality act, which has nothing to do with "equality".  Equality strongly implies that many views are considered and weighed together.  What the equality act does is declare that certain views are right and all others wrong.

H.R. 5, titled "To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes." goes far beyond that.  Heritage says it's “a bill that would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes under federal civil rights law.” They then go on to say, “the Equality Act would further inequality by penalizing everyday Americans for their beliefs about marriage and biological sex,” and discuss some of the wide ranging implications for various groups.

The most obvious implications are for:
Employers and Workers

The Equality Act would force employers and workers to conform to new sexual norms or else lose their businesses and jobs.

This is already happening on the state and local level.

The most high profile example involves Colorado baker Jack Phillips, whose case went all the way to the Supreme Court after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission accused him of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when he declined to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.

He is not the only victim. Other cases involving disagreement over the meaning of marriage feature florists, bakers, photographers, wedding venue owners, videographers, web designers, calligraphers, and public servants.
What was originally a state civil rights trial now becomes a Federal offense and Federal trial.

The law is no easier on
Medical Professionals 

The Equality Act would force hospitals and insurers to provide and pay for these therapies against any moral or medical objections. It would politicize medicine by forcing professionals to act against their best medical judgment and provide transition-affirming therapies.

The fight is already here. Catholic hospitals in California and New Jersey have been sued for declining to perform hysterectomies on otherwise healthy women who want to become male. A third Catholic hospital in Washington settled out of court when the ACLU sued them for declining to perform a double mastectomy on a gender dysphoric sixteen-year-old girl.
Nor is it easier on
Parents and Children

This politicization of medicine would ultimately harm families by normalizing hormonal and surgical interventions for gender dysphoric children as well as ideological “education” in schools and other public venues.

80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria no longer feel distressed by their bodies after puberty. Yet activists continue to push their own radical protocol: social transition as young as 4, puberty blocking drugs as young as 9, cross-sex hormones as young as 14, and surgery by 18 (or, in some cases, even younger).

This protocol could become mandatory in the future. The latest issue of the American Journal of Bioethics includes an article arguing that the state should overrule the parents of gender dysphoric children who do not consent to giving them puberty-blocking drugs.
Need I remind you Bioethicists have already said post-birth abortion (infanticide) is ethical and should be legal.  In another journal article they declared that it's morally and ethically OK to take the life of someone because, “killing by itself is not morally wrong, although it is still morally wrong to cause total disability”.  That says it's not wrong to murder someone who is disabled - yet they never define "disabled", saying
“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”
What a twisted world medical ethicists live in if weeds and humans are equivalents!  Let's just say I don't see any particular reason to respect the opinion of bioethicists.  In my view, bioethicists have no marketable abilities, which could be one definition of "disabled", and are only employed because they're in a society so rich it pays for people to come up with crap like this.  Does that mean it's ethical to kill bioethicists? 
Non-Profits and Volunteers

The Equality Act would also hurt charities, volunteers, and the populations they serve.

State and local sexual orientation and gender identity laws have shut down numerous  faith-based adoption and foster care agencies across the country, in Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.

These states wrongly treated the belief that children do best with both a mother and a father as discriminatory, and kids are the ones who are paying the price. With 438,000 children languishing in foster care nationwide, we need more agencies working to help kids find homes, not fewer.

Now charities that admit to the reality of biological sex are under attack too.

In Anchorage, Alaska, a biological male twice tried to gain access to the city’s Downtown Hope Center, a shelter for homeless, abused, and trafficked women. In response, the individual sued the center for alleged “gender identity discrimination.”
Finally, in what we talked about in the second part of my post two weeks ago, the equality bill would end women's sports as they exist now.

The Equality Act would ultimately lead to the erasure of women by dismantling sex-specific facilities, sports, and other female-only spaces.

Sexual orientation and gender identity laws that  open up sex-specific facilities like bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. to members of the opposite sex enable sexual assault.

For example, Pascha Thomas was forced to remove her child from school after a male classmate assaulted her five-year-old daughter in the girls’ restroom. The boy had access to the girls’ restroom because the school’s policy that grants students access to private facilities on the basis of self-identified gender identity. Administrators refused to change the policy despite Thomas’ complaints. Federal authorities are now investigating the incident.

The concern with these policies is that predators will take advantage of the law to gain access to victims. Policies like these make women less likely to report incidents and law enforcement less likely to get involved, for fear of being accused of discrimination.

These policies also leave women at a disadvantage in sex-specific sports and other activities.

Two biological males who identify and compete as women easily took first and second place at the Connecticut State Track Championships.

Selina Soule, a female runner, lost the race—and the chance to be scouted by college coaches and selected for athletic scholarships. “We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts,” she said. “It’s demoralizing.”

Females of all ages can expect to lose more and more opportunities like these to biological males who have a natural advantage in sports and physical activities. The Equality Act would defeat the entire purpose of Title IX, which was meant to ensure that women would have the same opportunities as men including in sports, and would leave women vulnerable to sexual assault.


  1. So, as a 50 something year old high school teacher, I could force my employer (the school) to allow me to share a bathroom with high school girls. Not just me: the janitor, the coaches, every adult employee of the school could use the locker room or group shower of their choice. THAT is what the Democrat party is asking for.

    1. To take it just a little farther, a stranger coming in off the street to use a school bathroom could go into a ladies room where he could assault someone. He could identify as a "gender-fluid student", which would mean that the staff could not refuse him the use of what were formerly "female only" spaces. Is there anyone who thinks sexual predators are incapable of figuring this out on their own? And access to girls'/ladies' locker rooms would be worse, due to the shower facilities which would save them the time and energy required to rip their victims' clothes off.

      How we haven't seen torch-bearing parents storming the school board meetings to drag off the administrators for some tar and feathering is beyond me. Parents should be up in arms over how their children are put at risk by this sick, demented, illogical acceptance of destructive and incredibly harmful behavior, just because a few freaks - yes, _freaks_ - insist it is somehow their "human right".

      The Left is doing this intentionally, folks. It will not be long at all before they use this to demand child-adult sex as their right, and go on to insist to do otherwise would be depriving the children of their "right" to sexual education, experience, and "fulfillment". The Left has been trying to get pedophilia normalized, removed from the DSM as a mental disorder, and made acceptable - including ruling that the parents have no rights to "interfere" in what is between the child and the adult. Just as a child no longer needs the permission of her parents in order to have an abortion. "Bio-ethicists" like Peter Singer have been trying to have pedophilia legalized for quite a few years now. They'll get no argument from Bill Clinton, I assure you. Or Joe Biden, for that matter.

    2. Reg,
      apparently you missed the memo regarding the Left's view of your children's safety. They don't care. Children mean nothing to them. Witness how hard they fight any attempt to arrange for armed guards for schools. It's okay for banks and stores, of course.

  2. I meant to add that, when persons of male physiology/genetic makeup insist on competing as women, the real women should all drop out. Let the SOBs run, or lift, or jump by themselves. If first and second place got to a couple of males with no one else competing, it will remove any meaning from their winning the competiton, as there simply won't _be_ any competition.

    Let all the real females walk off, refusing to have any part in the sport, and it will end quickly. Better several years without any competitions, without any women in the Olympics - especially if they all refuse to participate right at the start of the activity, and it will get sorted out.

    I can envision eight or ten women in the blocks, the starter pistol fires, and the six or eight _real_ women simpy stand up and walk off the track. Surely you can imagine how foolish the pretend females will find themselves- running _by_ themselves.

  3. This is real because politicians seem to be pursuing absolute insanity. But it doesn't mean that it's not insane.

  4. purpose of Title IX, which was meant to ensure that women would have the same opportunities as men including in sports

    Before Title IX, women had the same opportunities as men in sports. Women were usually uncompetitive, and the best womens' tennis player is estimated to be ranked number 700 against men. Then Title IX introduced a special olympics for women. Today we have a special military for women and special universities. Similarly, we have a special everything for minorities, the theory apparently being that, like women in sports, they can never be competitive due to some sort of immutable biological reason. I'm sure with a big pair of calipers we could compare skull shapes and measure this differerence with typical German precision. I bet they used the same pair of calipers on the ice cores to establish Global Warming.

    Social justice is not about getting a job accomplished, it's about spreading out the work as evenly as possible among the non-elite. Featherbedding. The Chinese were better at social justice last century, when they replicated the manual agricultural methods of the preindustrial Southern US.

  5. I've long been a supporter of LGBT rights.

    I've also long warned that they'd better stop at being equal, nothing more.

    They asked me why.

    I said because you are a vanishingly small minority and should you raise the ire of the majority sufficiently; you will PINE for the pleasant days of sodomy laws. Iran might start looking like a good alternative.

    I will readily agree that everyone is a person, entitled to the same rights and protections as all others. Ask or demand that I be treated as less than equal in exchange for your rights? No. Not just no, but FUCK NO!

    1. That's really the problem in a nutshell. I sure have no problem with equal rights for everyone, but it seems all equal rights movements eventually turn into some group demanding special rights.

      It's hard to care less than I do what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, but I don't want to see any couple of any inclination having sex in the streets. When they want to shove their proclivity in my face (so to speak) I don't want to know.

      I'm not a doctor (or lawyer, or much of anything) but from what I'm able to learn about gender dysphoria, I'm highly suspicious that we suddenly have an outbreak of GD and need to criminalize doctors and any other people who are trying to find the best therapies. I'm not aware of any way that gender dysphoria can be transmitted like a communicable disease - that implies the incidence is the same as always, a tiny fraction of 1%. If there is any debate, it should be what the most effective treatments are.