When I get mad I’m coldly calculating, and vicious yet legal and totally sweetness and light. You need to be perhaps.
I might suggest a nasty-ish strategy. Assuming this is a non-profit, non-profits normally must carry "D&O" coverage - "Directors and Officers" insurance coverage to manage _personal_ liability if someone is harmed by their actions or inaction relative to duty of care for their institution. It’s not usually too expensive. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve been CEO of complex organizations and paid expensive lawyers. This provides you with a possible hammer.
2. You then have a list of their Directors and Officers, which are required by the IRS
3. Send a letter to each person
- State you have concerns about the physical safety of your child in mixed-sex sports
- Cite a half-dozen instances of physical trauma to girls
- Cite cases of sexual trauma
- Ask for a copy of their D&O coverage policy
- Say that you were worried about the distinct possibility of your child being physically assaulted, or sustaining severe injury requiring medical care
- You wanted to ensure that suing them personally to recover medical costs for not taking adequate care for physical safety of girls would provide adequate funds
- As well as compensation for trauma
- Ensure they understand cancellation is not an option since safe, healthy happy sports activity for girls part of a wonderful summer they are expected to support
- Follow up the letter with a call after 2 days
4. tell them If they don’t comply within 5 days you will just have to send a letter to local TV stations asking for help “as a concerned mother just trying to raise healthy happy physically active girls when lord knows they spend too much time on the iPhone”
- Point out in the TV station letter you will ask why this recreation facility doesn’t present the opportunity for safe, appropriate sports opportunities for girls
- What is it about girls they don’t like
- Why they are funded for safe male activities but not safe female activities
- Are they anti-female?
- Are they ok with males demoralizing and injuring females simply due to their presence in the game
- Ensure they understand that they will be cited by name
5. Ask every person you know to send the same letter
6. If they send a response, then simply send another response asking if they still intend to have mixed-sex sports, you want to know when you send a letter to their insurance provider to make sure they are current with insurance and that the additional liability they are taking with mixed sex sports on is reflected in their current rates.
7. If they didn’t send a response to (3) you wanted from the first letter then take the TV approach (4).
8. If they complied with 3 but didn’t send a response you wanted from (6) then use the insurance provider and (6) and TV response (2) together always ensuring names are named. Not staff, directors.
9. Ensure that (5) as many people as you know send the same series of letters. Ideally a day apart so they arrive constantly.
10. At any time if they comply with single-sex sports then send them a bubbly letter signed by all your girls and their friends thanking them, and a copy to the TV station praising their decision.
Remember, staff will always deflect and hammering them seems cruel.
It’s asking the right “friendly” questions at the root of the issue which drives lasting change.
Remix the process to adapt to local conditions, speak with a women’s right lawyer if it seems too vicious, but remember nothing I’ve stated is anything more than putting pressure on the organization, through officers and directors.
I like the way you think. You’re right. Go for the insurance. This is a massive liability and they’re completely ignoring it. (Sad that just violating girls’ rights to privacy, safety, and dignity aren’t enough.)
Darwinian sex selection at the cultural level (males evolve new ways to mate with females) has a dual: culture evolving rules to regulate unwanted sex.
The current version of our culture is to insist people are bad if they don’t support fetish “identity”. This leverages childhood training to be “good”, and cognitive confusion to allow males sex access to females.
Unfortunately, as with all evolution it never stops. I wish history worked otherwise.
Being gay, my evolutionary niche is apparently altruism. I’m happy to be a good uncle.
Thank you for making an attempt to get these people to defend their BS. Girls are second class citizens now thanks to the Left. What they’re doing is indefensible.
You did the most important thing you could do, which is speak up.
Congratulations! You are strong and brave.
Now we just have to find all of the others who are aaallllmmmmost ready to speak up themselves, but are intimidated because they don't realize they are surrounded by many people just like them.
Why are we in the position of having to explain males are not females and the fundamental reason for girls and women’s sports? There is nothing that is more obvious and innately known.
Screw reasoning. Screw explaining. We are not up against rational ideology. We need to put the simple facts in their faces. “He is not a woman.” “He is not a girl.” “Men don’t (menstrate, get pregnant, breast feed)” “Effeminate men are not women.”
I think a lot is in how you approach the PR people in the first place. As you say, your initial approach put them on the defensive so you couldn't lead them into explaining the contradictions of their policy. I think it's a good idea to consider what sort of questions would create problems for them.
One example might be: "I know some parents who are interested, but they're religious [you don't have to specify which religion] and they'd be very uncomfortable at the idea of their daughter playing in a team that would also have boys." (Their reply: "Ah well no these identify as female.") "But they're not really girls, are they? They'd still look like boys and these parents would know they were boys. I think their daughter would really enjoy this but even the possibility of having a boy on the team would be a problem for them." ("Can't the girl decide?") "No, because it's her parents who give permission for attendance and would take her to and from it."
Let the PR people confront the problem here - who are they going to exclude?
I'm sure you can think of other ways in. The insurance idea mentioned above is a good one - "do you have insurance for a boy knocking over a girl?" The key I think is not to be confrontational but to lead them to the point where the contradiction becomes obvious - that they're favouring boys over girls even while pretending to be all about girls.
When I get mad I’m coldly calculating, and vicious yet legal and totally sweetness and light. You need to be perhaps.
I might suggest a nasty-ish strategy. Assuming this is a non-profit, non-profits normally must carry "D&O" coverage - "Directors and Officers" insurance coverage to manage _personal_ liability if someone is harmed by their actions or inaction relative to duty of care for their institution. It’s not usually too expensive. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve been CEO of complex organizations and paid expensive lawyers. This provides you with a possible hammer.
1. Go online and find their latest tax filings.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/
2. You then have a list of their Directors and Officers, which are required by the IRS
3. Send a letter to each person
- State you have concerns about the physical safety of your child in mixed-sex sports
- Cite a half-dozen instances of physical trauma to girls
- Cite cases of sexual trauma
- Ask for a copy of their D&O coverage policy
- Say that you were worried about the distinct possibility of your child being physically assaulted, or sustaining severe injury requiring medical care
- You wanted to ensure that suing them personally to recover medical costs for not taking adequate care for physical safety of girls would provide adequate funds
- As well as compensation for trauma
- Ensure they understand cancellation is not an option since safe, healthy happy sports activity for girls part of a wonderful summer they are expected to support
- Follow up the letter with a call after 2 days
4. tell them If they don’t comply within 5 days you will just have to send a letter to local TV stations asking for help “as a concerned mother just trying to raise healthy happy physically active girls when lord knows they spend too much time on the iPhone”
- Point out in the TV station letter you will ask why this recreation facility doesn’t present the opportunity for safe, appropriate sports opportunities for girls
- What is it about girls they don’t like
- Why they are funded for safe male activities but not safe female activities
- Are they anti-female?
- Are they ok with males demoralizing and injuring females simply due to their presence in the game
- Ensure they understand that they will be cited by name
5. Ask every person you know to send the same letter
6. If they send a response, then simply send another response asking if they still intend to have mixed-sex sports, you want to know when you send a letter to their insurance provider to make sure they are current with insurance and that the additional liability they are taking with mixed sex sports on is reflected in their current rates.
7. If they didn’t send a response to (3) you wanted from the first letter then take the TV approach (4).
8. If they complied with 3 but didn’t send a response you wanted from (6) then use the insurance provider and (6) and TV response (2) together always ensuring names are named. Not staff, directors.
9. Ensure that (5) as many people as you know send the same series of letters. Ideally a day apart so they arrive constantly.
10. At any time if they comply with single-sex sports then send them a bubbly letter signed by all your girls and their friends thanking them, and a copy to the TV station praising their decision.
Remember, staff will always deflect and hammering them seems cruel.
It’s asking the right “friendly” questions at the root of the issue which drives lasting change.
Remix the process to adapt to local conditions, speak with a women’s right lawyer if it seems too vicious, but remember nothing I’ve stated is anything more than putting pressure on the organization, through officers and directors.
I like the way you think. You’re right. Go for the insurance. This is a massive liability and they’re completely ignoring it. (Sad that just violating girls’ rights to privacy, safety, and dignity aren’t enough.)
Darwinian sex selection at the cultural level (males evolve new ways to mate with females) has a dual: culture evolving rules to regulate unwanted sex.
The current version of our culture is to insist people are bad if they don’t support fetish “identity”. This leverages childhood training to be “good”, and cognitive confusion to allow males sex access to females.
Unfortunately, as with all evolution it never stops. I wish history worked otherwise.
Being gay, my evolutionary niche is apparently altruism. I’m happy to be a good uncle.
We need more to think like you.
Thank you for making an attempt to get these people to defend their BS. Girls are second class citizens now thanks to the Left. What they’re doing is indefensible.
You did the most important thing you could do, which is speak up.
Congratulations! You are strong and brave.
Now we just have to find all of the others who are aaallllmmmmost ready to speak up themselves, but are intimidated because they don't realize they are surrounded by many people just like them.
Disgusting! I’m so so sick of this! All this kowtowing to an arrogant minority who want it all!
Why are we in the position of having to explain males are not females and the fundamental reason for girls and women’s sports? There is nothing that is more obvious and innately known.
Screw reasoning. Screw explaining. We are not up against rational ideology. We need to put the simple facts in their faces. “He is not a woman.” “He is not a girl.” “Men don’t (menstrate, get pregnant, breast feed)” “Effeminate men are not women.”
I think a lot is in how you approach the PR people in the first place. As you say, your initial approach put them on the defensive so you couldn't lead them into explaining the contradictions of their policy. I think it's a good idea to consider what sort of questions would create problems for them.
One example might be: "I know some parents who are interested, but they're religious [you don't have to specify which religion] and they'd be very uncomfortable at the idea of their daughter playing in a team that would also have boys." (Their reply: "Ah well no these identify as female.") "But they're not really girls, are they? They'd still look like boys and these parents would know they were boys. I think their daughter would really enjoy this but even the possibility of having a boy on the team would be a problem for them." ("Can't the girl decide?") "No, because it's her parents who give permission for attendance and would take her to and from it."
Let the PR people confront the problem here - who are they going to exclude?
I'm sure you can think of other ways in. The insurance idea mentioned above is a good one - "do you have insurance for a boy knocking over a girl?" The key I think is not to be confrontational but to lead them to the point where the contradiction becomes obvious - that they're favouring boys over girls even while pretending to be all about girls.