'Taters?' What's 'taters,' precious?? - me to Brianna Wu
Feeling the same way about Brianna Wu being feted by the FP. I try really hard not to become prejudiced in any way towards people who identify as trans, since it's the beliefs and politics I object to, not the human being or their experience. But to be honest, I don't think I've ever encountered a trans activist who believed in the ideology for themselves, who could also combat it effectively. This is true of all so-called "GC" trans activists who still go by their trans name and pronouns exclusively. I'm sorry, but you can't combat a cult if you're still a full adherent.
Can't wait to watch the meeting!
Also, I think it's unrealistic to expect male individuals who have transitioned to ever be able to use the men's room. I don't think they belong in the women's at all, but I think third gender spaces are important to avoid them being the victim of targeted attacks- I firmly support trans-identifying people to use the unisex/"family" style bathrooms. I agree though that this should be discussed as the men's issue it is. Think about prisons: There are women's prisons. And then there are many different tiers of men's prisons based on the comparatively huge capacity of male violence. Because you can't put a relatively normal, non-violent guy in with a violent man. It's a human right's abuse. I do think it's "funny" though how men mistreat women so consistently throughout human history yet still turn to us to solve their own problems. Like, y'all never considered a men's rights movement to address male violence in public facilities, in restrooms, or in other spaces towards vulnerable men? Guess that's your fault, then, bc that ball is firmly in your court. People who have special bodily issues (be it a wheelchair, or that their body looks gender-ambiguous due to natural reasons or that they were given sham medical treatments for gender dysphoria, deserve safety and privacy from harassment. I would happily hold a picket sign for single-stall, unisex handicap/special-needs spaces in addition to the women's and men's facilities, but no man has ever asked me to. *shrugs*
Just wanted to thank you again for the podcast. It’s the highlight of my week-which is weird-because it’s often covering such sobering topics. Please keep up the conversations! They are needed & your rapport is ✨.
Cori displayed an-all-too rare maturity in the face of the protestors. Thank you for being an example of what is needed - on all sides!! - to move the needle forward in protecting women and children.
I watched part of the school committee meeting and found the hostility just so unnerving. Four people who I respect so much, who are so smart and articulate, being treated with such contempt to their faces, I couldn’t get through it.
Maybe that’s why I’m not an activist—just not brave enough to face down the yelling. I was so impressed by your composure. Perhaps, as Cori noted, it gets easier with experience.
(BTW, I am a former District 3 parent thankful that my child went to NYC public schools before this stuff took over.)
I’ve been following both Wu and Hanania for a little while. I’ve been curious to watch their evolution as people willing to break ranks with their tribes. (I have always liked to follow people with contrasting viewpoints—helps me test my own thoughts about an issue.)
But I couldn’t bring myself to watch their love fest. Hanania is now talking about how great transwomen are (well, the visually feminized ones). Wait, what?
It makes me wonder if either of them have any principles at all. What is driving them? I’m all for people changing their minds (I’ve changed mine on many issues) but I wonder if they are merely manipulating ideas for attention.
There is a cheerful example of an effeminate little boy who was told "it's OK for you to wear dresses, it's OK for you to dance with the girls" and was not told that his unusual preferences mean he is really a girl: he goes by "Boss Baby Brody" on Instagram. He lives in southern California.
He's maybe 8 years old now and he no longer wears dresses, but when he was a toddler he glommed onto his older sister's old princess costumes and danced. His mom was already trying to be sort of a mom influencer and she celebrated him and posted videos of him dancing on social media.
She got grief from people telling her that she had a trans girl and needed to change his name and she got grief from people telling her that she should not allow her son to wear dresses. She ignored them all, she let Brody do what he wanted. He wore dresses and grew his hair out sort of from age 2-5, but he didn't always dress like a girl.
At 5 he went to kindergarten, and that's when he started to drop the really girly things like bows in his hair and skirts. He kept dancing and his style simply became "fabulous." I've been following him on Instagram for probably 5 years now. https://www.instagram.com/bossbabybrody/
I can't tell you how grateful I am for this podcast. The emergence of transgender ideology alongside a system of brutal enforcement mechanisms designed to get us to praise annihilation of our (sexed and sexual) being is absolutely terrifying.
Every single discussion of "transgender" with respect to children should include their being rendered PERMANENTLY INCAPABLE OF ORGASM by the crimes against humanity institutions are hawking as "treatment." That's even before you factor in infertility, induced disability and a drastically foreclosed lifespan. "Meaning well" means nothing here--"compassion" leading to butchery is worse than indifference.
I stand with women, with lesbians and gay men, with autistic people and children--with moms and dads, sons and daughters who oppose this lunacy.
As a 64-year-old reader of history I find myself thinking about some of the gentlefolk who were seniors when Hitlerism started to bubble through Europe: shocked and appalled at what the latest generation imagines to be "progress."
Thank you, thank you for your voices. You give me hope.
I take the edict "By their fruits you shall know them." to be consistently and practically useful. For example, I have used this to identify Karl Marx and his resentful ramblings to be those of an unrepentant alcoholic.
I do not believe that Sanger and Bernays literally set out to establish genderism. I am merely using their personae as figureheads for the ideologies and tactics of *eugenics* and *identitarian PR*.
My point is that at some point it occurred to those possessed with the ideology of eugenics to deploy (voluntary) sterilization through a Bernays type marketing blitz.
I absolutely agree that men should be totally welcoming of all men, however they identify, or whatever their presentation (including very feminine men, and trans-identifying men)
However, the problem is that many 'trans-women' DON'T WANT to go into the men's.
They don't go into the women's bathroom cos they feel unsafe in the men's (even though that is often the excuse they give).
They go into the women's, cos it's their deepest desire to be accepted as a woman.
So, in the end it really doesn't make any difference how open or accommodating men are.
Cori is hilarious! Sometimes on his Heterodorx podcast a guest gets confused and doesn’t catch that Cori is being ironic while Nina laughs hysterically.
I have genuinely mixed feelings about Brianna Wu. You covered the negative pretty thoroughly in the episode, so I’ll focus on the positive. There are things I disagree with Brianna about, but I suspect we agree on quite a bit more. I don’t want to have purity tests with people. And in spite of the disagreements we have, I think it’s a good thing to have someone with the “lived experience” credibility that is so important to progressives out their making many honest statements about the state of the trans-activism movement. This is similar to how I feel about Laura Edwards-Leeper. Even though my impression of her now is significantly net-negative, back when I was just starting to really question what was going on with the transgender movement hearing someone like her openly acknowledge that there were things that we should be legitimately concerned about was very persuasive and encouraged me to dig deeper. Brianna Wu could potentially be that person for lefties who are potentially open to having their views challenged on this. The more people out there who can do that the better, as far as I’m concerned, even if I have my own issues with some of their positions.
By the way, that was me trying to do my best impression of Eliza and writing while avoiding pronouns for a trans-identified person while not making my writing stilted or award. It’s not easy!
Speaking of pronouns, would love to hear a conversation about your own individual policies and how you came up with them. I’ve struggled to come up with something that I feel good about, something more rigorous than, say, “preferred pronouns for people I like or who pass, unless I’m afraid of getting in trouble”. The problem for me is that I bump up against two things I intensely dislike: saying something that will hurt someone and saying something I don’t believe. My personal interactions with transgender-identifying people have been almost totally positive, and holding to a 100% sex-based pronoun policy in my actual life would just end up being cruel and alienating to them to no positive end. Why would I do that? At the same time, I don’t want to tacitly acknowledge through my pronoun use something that I believe to be a fiction; that a man can be woman or vice versa. The practical result is just a lot of awkward linguistic dancing around to avoid third person pronouns at all, which I guess a lot of people do. Maybe that is my policy after all….? Awkwardly dancing around...? Bringing it back to Brianna Wu, I could tell that some of you were holding to a sex-based pronoun line during the episode, but even then it felt like it was something you had to do consciously and wasn’t totally natural. So I'm sure there was a thought process there. Would love to hear what that thought process around pronoun use looks like for each of you.
Pronouns and our personal policies would be a great topic. We've briefly touched on it in the past, I think, but I would like to revisit it. Even in my latest Substack piece, I began by calling a masculinized female "she" and then at one point switched to "he" without noticing it. A reader alerted me.
Hey - not to make this about me, but I spoke at CEC2 on Wednesday (one of like 5 who are in favor of CEC2’s defunct resolution) and, being a bit mortified at some of the behavior of a few radfems around me, I don’t think what I had to say was crazy.
In fact, I am a District 2 parent, although my youngest, who is trans-identified since age 12, graduated high school last June and my son 3 years earlier. They both attend college in NYC. I did not think my words were extreme or hateful or something to be laughed at. I invite you to read my speech on my substack at hippiesq and critique anything with which you disagree.
I was hopeful that your talk Monday might have sparked some thoughtfulness in the activists but no such luck. They interpret anything not fully on board as hateful and dismissed Corinna as a “self-hating trans person,” which is disgusting. It’s like 4 year olds know themselves, but a thoughtful adult who realizes maybe he didn’t need to alter his body to find happiness is an idiot. So wrong!
Just read your speech and it is spot-on and of course not hateful in the least. I understand that the resolution is now dead, absolutely ridiculous considering all it was asking was that the 2019 policy be revisited, correct?
It's technically still in existence, but is dead in the sense that the DOE will do nothing about it. The 4 activist board members keep bringing new resolutions to officially cancel that resolution - to show that it was a hateful thing to want to hear from all interested parties and possibly, but not necessarily, change DOE policy on sports.
A few of the people on our "side" got a little heated and were yelling (usually prompted by the activists). Some examples: At one point, the activists put a big blue and pink flag in front of all of us as one of their speakers came up, blocking our view, and there was some screaming. Another time, an activist came over and, pointing a finger, yelled "where's your rapist now?" at one of our group (I don't know what the reference was about), and that prompted some strong yelling. There were 2 or 3 other such examples. I understand their passion - I have it too - but there are times when you have to maintain your poise, and ignore the insanity around you, which they didn't want to do. (As to the description "radfems," I was just borrowing Lisa's description of them.)
My understanding is that how federal laws like H.R. 28 are enforced is up to the states. That’s why no specific enforcement protocol was specified in the bill. Do any of you know if this is true?
This was once again a fascinating discussion, and I want to extend particular applause and thanks to Cory, Ben, and Lisa, for participating in the CECD2 panel. I share the view that this was momentous. It didn’t matter that the audience present in person was small, there are so many more of us out here who watched and were moved and thrilled by what you said—and how amazingly calm cool and collected you remained in the face of the comments. Maud did a superb job of handling the meeting, and also deserves huge applause for getting this issue on the table in NYC.
I did want to also note a couple things on the legal issues discussed—with the caveat that if anyone here has other information, please don’t hesitate to correct me.
First, while NYC (and perhaps other localities in NYS) allows males to self-ID into women’s prisons, I believe putting this in place at a statewide level is only at the proposal stage. There is a state-level bill, introduced again this year, that would allow this statewide, but it has not yet passed. Of course, all of this is affected, too, by the passage of Prop 1, which enshrines self-ID in the State Constitutjon.
Second, on the issue of which level of law takes precedence over another, I believe the hierarchy, in the event of a conflict, is Federal Constitution>Federal law>State Constitution>State law.
Last, AOC’s complaint that the law contains no enforcement mechanism, so anything goes, is off base. (I loved Ben’s gloss on this, noting that AOC professed to be hugely concerned about this when it came to the sports bill, but seemed utterly unconcerned that self-ID gives license to every predator on the planet to waltz into spaces those same little girls should have a right to for their dignity safety and privacy.)
Also, in the case of HR28 (and S9), these bills amend existing laws—that is, they are not stand-alone pieces of legislation. All this new bill does is to clarify that “sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” (In the House bill, there is an extra paragraph allowing males to train or practice with a girls team under certain circumstances, which women’s sports groups have indicated is a useful, appropriate exception.) This is an eminently reasonable bill—and in the age of self-ID, also necessary—which should have received strong bi-partisan support.
So, I concur with Eliza’s Postman commentary (loved that, Eliza!) that AOC’s remarks were both stupid and crazy.
'Taters?' What's 'taters,' precious?? - me to Brianna Wu
Feeling the same way about Brianna Wu being feted by the FP. I try really hard not to become prejudiced in any way towards people who identify as trans, since it's the beliefs and politics I object to, not the human being or their experience. But to be honest, I don't think I've ever encountered a trans activist who believed in the ideology for themselves, who could also combat it effectively. This is true of all so-called "GC" trans activists who still go by their trans name and pronouns exclusively. I'm sorry, but you can't combat a cult if you're still a full adherent.
Can't wait to watch the meeting!
Also, I think it's unrealistic to expect male individuals who have transitioned to ever be able to use the men's room. I don't think they belong in the women's at all, but I think third gender spaces are important to avoid them being the victim of targeted attacks- I firmly support trans-identifying people to use the unisex/"family" style bathrooms. I agree though that this should be discussed as the men's issue it is. Think about prisons: There are women's prisons. And then there are many different tiers of men's prisons based on the comparatively huge capacity of male violence. Because you can't put a relatively normal, non-violent guy in with a violent man. It's a human right's abuse. I do think it's "funny" though how men mistreat women so consistently throughout human history yet still turn to us to solve their own problems. Like, y'all never considered a men's rights movement to address male violence in public facilities, in restrooms, or in other spaces towards vulnerable men? Guess that's your fault, then, bc that ball is firmly in your court. People who have special bodily issues (be it a wheelchair, or that their body looks gender-ambiguous due to natural reasons or that they were given sham medical treatments for gender dysphoria, deserve safety and privacy from harassment. I would happily hold a picket sign for single-stall, unisex handicap/special-needs spaces in addition to the women's and men's facilities, but no man has ever asked me to. *shrugs*
Just wanted to thank you again for the podcast. It’s the highlight of my week-which is weird-because it’s often covering such sobering topics. Please keep up the conversations! They are needed & your rapport is ✨.
So glad you’re enjoying it!
I am glad to know I’m not the only one who was meh on the new Free Press show.
Cori displayed an-all-too rare maturity in the face of the protestors. Thank you for being an example of what is needed - on all sides!! - to move the needle forward in protecting women and children.
I watched the CEC D2 meeting. Lisa, Ben, and Cori were excellent! That was a masterclass in effectively dealing with hostility.
Love this podcast and look forward to the next episode.
I watched part of the school committee meeting and found the hostility just so unnerving. Four people who I respect so much, who are so smart and articulate, being treated with such contempt to their faces, I couldn’t get through it.
Maybe that’s why I’m not an activist—just not brave enough to face down the yelling. I was so impressed by your composure. Perhaps, as Cori noted, it gets easier with experience.
(BTW, I am a former District 3 parent thankful that my child went to NYC public schools before this stuff took over.)
I’ve been following both Wu and Hanania for a little while. I’ve been curious to watch their evolution as people willing to break ranks with their tribes. (I have always liked to follow people with contrasting viewpoints—helps me test my own thoughts about an issue.)
But I couldn’t bring myself to watch their love fest. Hanania is now talking about how great transwomen are (well, the visually feminized ones). Wait, what?
It makes me wonder if either of them have any principles at all. What is driving them? I’m all for people changing their minds (I’ve changed mine on many issues) but I wonder if they are merely manipulating ideas for attention.
Okay, okay, yes.
Excellent podcast on a muddled subject matter. Thank you for shedding light on this.
There is a cheerful example of an effeminate little boy who was told "it's OK for you to wear dresses, it's OK for you to dance with the girls" and was not told that his unusual preferences mean he is really a girl: he goes by "Boss Baby Brody" on Instagram. He lives in southern California.
He's maybe 8 years old now and he no longer wears dresses, but when he was a toddler he glommed onto his older sister's old princess costumes and danced. His mom was already trying to be sort of a mom influencer and she celebrated him and posted videos of him dancing on social media.
She got grief from people telling her that she had a trans girl and needed to change his name and she got grief from people telling her that she should not allow her son to wear dresses. She ignored them all, she let Brody do what he wanted. He wore dresses and grew his hair out sort of from age 2-5, but he didn't always dress like a girl.
At 5 he went to kindergarten, and that's when he started to drop the really girly things like bows in his hair and skirts. He kept dancing and his style simply became "fabulous." I've been following him on Instagram for probably 5 years now. https://www.instagram.com/bossbabybrody/
Interesting! Didn't know about this family. Clicked on the link and was so glad not to see pronouns in the bio!
That's what we need more of!
I can't tell you how grateful I am for this podcast. The emergence of transgender ideology alongside a system of brutal enforcement mechanisms designed to get us to praise annihilation of our (sexed and sexual) being is absolutely terrifying.
Every single discussion of "transgender" with respect to children should include their being rendered PERMANENTLY INCAPABLE OF ORGASM by the crimes against humanity institutions are hawking as "treatment." That's even before you factor in infertility, induced disability and a drastically foreclosed lifespan. "Meaning well" means nothing here--"compassion" leading to butchery is worse than indifference.
I stand with women, with lesbians and gay men, with autistic people and children--with moms and dads, sons and daughters who oppose this lunacy.
As a 64-year-old reader of history I find myself thinking about some of the gentlefolk who were seniors when Hitlerism started to bubble through Europe: shocked and appalled at what the latest generation imagines to be "progress."
Thank you, thank you for your voices. You give me hope.
Really appreciate this. Thank you.
Genderism appears to be the "love child" of Margaret Sanger and Edward Bernays:
Eugenics + Identitarianism. The movement sells ELECTIVE STERILIZATION under the brand "gender affirming care".
See: "POPULATION: The Birth of Control" (https://youtu.be/O_kIW1-M504) and
"Century of the Self" (https://youtu.be/eJ3RzGoQC4s)
Whether or not they fathered (mothered?) transgenderism, it’s clear these ideas have deep roots—which makes the battle against them so difficult.
I take the edict "By their fruits you shall know them." to be consistently and practically useful. For example, I have used this to identify Karl Marx and his resentful ramblings to be those of an unrepentant alcoholic.
I do not believe that Sanger and Bernays literally set out to establish genderism. I am merely using their personae as figureheads for the ideologies and tactics of *eugenics* and *identitarian PR*.
My point is that at some point it occurred to those possessed with the ideology of eugenics to deploy (voluntary) sterilization through a Bernays type marketing blitz.
Quick thought about the bathroom issue.
I absolutely agree that men should be totally welcoming of all men, however they identify, or whatever their presentation (including very feminine men, and trans-identifying men)
However, the problem is that many 'trans-women' DON'T WANT to go into the men's.
They don't go into the women's bathroom cos they feel unsafe in the men's (even though that is often the excuse they give).
They go into the women's, cos it's their deepest desire to be accepted as a woman.
So, in the end it really doesn't make any difference how open or accommodating men are.
Good point.
I love Cory's humorous little comments (trans fats..)
It's rather British in its subtle, understated style.
Cori is hilarious! Sometimes on his Heterodorx podcast a guest gets confused and doesn’t catch that Cori is being ironic while Nina laughs hysterically.
I have genuinely mixed feelings about Brianna Wu. You covered the negative pretty thoroughly in the episode, so I’ll focus on the positive. There are things I disagree with Brianna about, but I suspect we agree on quite a bit more. I don’t want to have purity tests with people. And in spite of the disagreements we have, I think it’s a good thing to have someone with the “lived experience” credibility that is so important to progressives out their making many honest statements about the state of the trans-activism movement. This is similar to how I feel about Laura Edwards-Leeper. Even though my impression of her now is significantly net-negative, back when I was just starting to really question what was going on with the transgender movement hearing someone like her openly acknowledge that there were things that we should be legitimately concerned about was very persuasive and encouraged me to dig deeper. Brianna Wu could potentially be that person for lefties who are potentially open to having their views challenged on this. The more people out there who can do that the better, as far as I’m concerned, even if I have my own issues with some of their positions.
By the way, that was me trying to do my best impression of Eliza and writing while avoiding pronouns for a trans-identified person while not making my writing stilted or award. It’s not easy!
Speaking of pronouns, would love to hear a conversation about your own individual policies and how you came up with them. I’ve struggled to come up with something that I feel good about, something more rigorous than, say, “preferred pronouns for people I like or who pass, unless I’m afraid of getting in trouble”. The problem for me is that I bump up against two things I intensely dislike: saying something that will hurt someone and saying something I don’t believe. My personal interactions with transgender-identifying people have been almost totally positive, and holding to a 100% sex-based pronoun policy in my actual life would just end up being cruel and alienating to them to no positive end. Why would I do that? At the same time, I don’t want to tacitly acknowledge through my pronoun use something that I believe to be a fiction; that a man can be woman or vice versa. The practical result is just a lot of awkward linguistic dancing around to avoid third person pronouns at all, which I guess a lot of people do. Maybe that is my policy after all….? Awkwardly dancing around...? Bringing it back to Brianna Wu, I could tell that some of you were holding to a sex-based pronoun line during the episode, but even then it felt like it was something you had to do consciously and wasn’t totally natural. So I'm sure there was a thought process there. Would love to hear what that thought process around pronoun use looks like for each of you.
Pronouns and our personal policies would be a great topic. We've briefly touched on it in the past, I think, but I would like to revisit it. Even in my latest Substack piece, I began by calling a masculinized female "she" and then at one point switched to "he" without noticing it. A reader alerted me.
Hey - not to make this about me, but I spoke at CEC2 on Wednesday (one of like 5 who are in favor of CEC2’s defunct resolution) and, being a bit mortified at some of the behavior of a few radfems around me, I don’t think what I had to say was crazy.
In fact, I am a District 2 parent, although my youngest, who is trans-identified since age 12, graduated high school last June and my son 3 years earlier. They both attend college in NYC. I did not think my words were extreme or hateful or something to be laughed at. I invite you to read my speech on my substack at hippiesq and critique anything with which you disagree.
I was hopeful that your talk Monday might have sparked some thoughtfulness in the activists but no such luck. They interpret anything not fully on board as hateful and dismissed Corinna as a “self-hating trans person,” which is disgusting. It’s like 4 year olds know themselves, but a thoughtful adult who realizes maybe he didn’t need to alter his body to find happiness is an idiot. So wrong!
Just read your speech and it is spot-on and of course not hateful in the least. I understand that the resolution is now dead, absolutely ridiculous considering all it was asking was that the 2019 policy be revisited, correct?
So where exactly does the resolution stand at this point? Also, what were the so-called radfems doing?
It's technically still in existence, but is dead in the sense that the DOE will do nothing about it. The 4 activist board members keep bringing new resolutions to officially cancel that resolution - to show that it was a hateful thing to want to hear from all interested parties and possibly, but not necessarily, change DOE policy on sports.
A few of the people on our "side" got a little heated and were yelling (usually prompted by the activists). Some examples: At one point, the activists put a big blue and pink flag in front of all of us as one of their speakers came up, blocking our view, and there was some screaming. Another time, an activist came over and, pointing a finger, yelled "where's your rapist now?" at one of our group (I don't know what the reference was about), and that prompted some strong yelling. There were 2 or 3 other such examples. I understand their passion - I have it too - but there are times when you have to maintain your poise, and ignore the insanity around you, which they didn't want to do. (As to the description "radfems," I was just borrowing Lisa's description of them.)
"Where's your rapist now?" is just so fucked up.
My understanding is that how federal laws like H.R. 28 are enforced is up to the states. That’s why no specific enforcement protocol was specified in the bill. Do any of you know if this is true?
This was once again a fascinating discussion, and I want to extend particular applause and thanks to Cory, Ben, and Lisa, for participating in the CECD2 panel. I share the view that this was momentous. It didn’t matter that the audience present in person was small, there are so many more of us out here who watched and were moved and thrilled by what you said—and how amazingly calm cool and collected you remained in the face of the comments. Maud did a superb job of handling the meeting, and also deserves huge applause for getting this issue on the table in NYC.
I did want to also note a couple things on the legal issues discussed—with the caveat that if anyone here has other information, please don’t hesitate to correct me.
First, while NYC (and perhaps other localities in NYS) allows males to self-ID into women’s prisons, I believe putting this in place at a statewide level is only at the proposal stage. There is a state-level bill, introduced again this year, that would allow this statewide, but it has not yet passed. Of course, all of this is affected, too, by the passage of Prop 1, which enshrines self-ID in the State Constitutjon.
Second, on the issue of which level of law takes precedence over another, I believe the hierarchy, in the event of a conflict, is Federal Constitution>Federal law>State Constitution>State law.
Last, AOC’s complaint that the law contains no enforcement mechanism, so anything goes, is off base. (I loved Ben’s gloss on this, noting that AOC professed to be hugely concerned about this when it came to the sports bill, but seemed utterly unconcerned that self-ID gives license to every predator on the planet to waltz into spaces those same little girls should have a right to for their dignity safety and privacy.)
Laws are often more general, then filled in by regulations, rules, and guidance. There’s a nice little primer on how this works here: https://www.ncontracts.com/nsight-blog/laws-vs-regulations-vs-guidance-new-interagency-statement-provides-clarification
Also, in the case of HR28 (and S9), these bills amend existing laws—that is, they are not stand-alone pieces of legislation. All this new bill does is to clarify that “sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” (In the House bill, there is an extra paragraph allowing males to train or practice with a girls team under certain circumstances, which women’s sports groups have indicated is a useful, appropriate exception.) This is an eminently reasonable bill—and in the age of self-ID, also necessary—which should have received strong bi-partisan support.
So, I concur with Eliza’s Postman commentary (loved that, Eliza!) that AOC’s remarks were both stupid and crazy.
Thanks to ALL of you for everything you do!
So helpful. Thank you!