Title 9 was written years ago, in the same manner that the ERA mentioned only women. Since women are not mentioned in the body of the Constitution does it not apply to them?
Women have an inner muscular strength that is designed to carry a growing baby for nine months and then labor intently and internally to push that baby out and deliver it when the time arrives and nourish that baby. The man was designed with an external strength to fend off danger and protect the woman and child. He works hard physically to build a life for his family ---- no matter the cost to himself. The man will stand against the terrors of night depending on none beside himself except for GOD's leading.
Title IX isn't all that old, and the idea of "gender identity" and "gender expression" is an even newer concept. When I was a kid, around the time title 9 came into existence, the notion that one could properly use the word "gender" in relation to humans was very much frowned upon, grammatically. I had teachers who made that correction, that language has genders, not people.. Not that long ago, these concepts would have easily been dismissed as absurd.
Specific wording in laws does not necessarily mean what you interpret it to mean. Man can also refer to women, the interpretation of the law is the responsibility of the Article 3 branch.
Nobody has suggested Title IX applies to men. It was specifically written to address the fact that women's sports was virtually non-existent, and there was a metric ton of funding for men's sports, and next to nothing for women's sports. So to create opportunities for women, Title IX was passed.
Says the author of post #2.
The thrust of the trans lobby argument is that "there is no such thing as biological sex" and it's all a gender identity spectrum.
jessesingal.substack.com
The thrust of the trans lobby argument is that "there is no such thing as biological sex" and it's all a gender identity spectrum.
No such thing as biological sex is the tip of the trans-lobby spear. and https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/med-schools-are-now-denying-biological?s=r and
Why So Many Progressives Are Arguing That Biological Sex Doesn't Exist
The right doesn't have a monopoly on science denialism
The definition of sex is "it doesn't exist - it's a myth." The definition of gender identity is "whatever a person says they identify as." That's what they want.
And, they will say at the same time that all gender is a social construct, and things that we associate with women (like dresses, dolls, pink, etc.) are not really women things, they're just socially adapted items that our culture assigns to women. Yet, they want to reinforce that "social construct" by having schools and doctors encourage and facilitate physical hormone treatments and surgery on kids because they wear dresses, like pink, and have tea parties instead of playing football.
I just found that college professor who challenges the idea that biological sex is a basic, biological fact. He states what is taught in University gender studies courses - biological sex doesn't exist.
What does finding a college professor prove?
You said - "Find someone who challenges either of those assertions and you’ve found someone who is, um, challenged" - and so, I found someone who challenges both of those assertions. And, he's a sitting professor at a major north American university being interviewed for exactly this topic on a major north American program.
What, you don’t think a college professor can be an idiot?
They can be, and the problem is that there is a shit-ton of these idiots and they are now controlling the "narrative" and they are pushing this bullshit. This is not just one idiot who everybody ignores. The people who say things like "primates have two sexes" are the ones receiving "backlash" from universities and in the media. We're almost living in bizarro world.
So just to be clear, even this (bolded) doesn't really work for sex. A person can possess a Y chromosome and still be female, even have children. Our genetic sex cannot be changed, not really (as we know yet), but then it also can't be considered as easy as "either you have a Y chromosome and are male or don't have one and are female". Some people do have multiple sets of DNA in their body, which means they do not fall into these binary categories.
Intersexed people make up about 1% of society. Being transgender is half that at best count. Intersexed is less rare than transgender.
You just cannot stop with your transphobic nonsense. trans people are not delusional because of their gender incongruence, despite what you want to believe.
Their condition is comparable to anorexics who see themselves subjectively as fat slobs, despite objectively being dangerously underweight. Body dysmorphia and self-harm are very sad conditions.
I have no problem with trans people exercising the same individual rights as everyone else: The right to marry who they want, alter their body if they are adults, serve in the military, be protected from discrimination/harassment in the workplace, etc. The thing about all these individual rights is that no one else has to do anything beyond leave them alone. They should be able to do any of those things, and it doesn't matter whether their adopted gender is "real" or not, since no one else needs to validate them.
Don't worry, the ACLU has been overtaken by illiberal thugs like Chase Strangio who agree with you. It no longer has any connection to fighting for civil liberties. I'd look to groups like FIRE instead.Oh no, someone asked me to get their pronouns correct! Hurry, call the ACLU!
Don't worry, the ACLU has been overtaken by illiberal thugs like Chase Strangio who agree with you. It no longer has any connection to fighting for civil liberties. I'd look to groups like FIRE instead.
Once upon a time. But certainly not in its current incarnation.It's OK, Gatsby. I never mistook you as supporting the ACLU.
I told you a couple days ago, I am entirely uninterested in your unintelligent partisan pissing contests. You midwits can go back and forth owning the libs/cons like it's a team sport, but I won't be playing or even spectating.
You don't have a right to someone else calling you by a certain pronoun."I'll support rights, but not for those people."