The Supreme Court is now hearing two cases—State of West Virginia v BPJ and Little v Hecox—that will have wide-ranging impact on how states interpret Title IX, and the future of girls’ and women’s sports.
And one the signers of “boys belong in girl’s sports” is WA state Senator Patty Murray. Back in 2003 said this at press conference, February 2003?
"I remain committed to doing all that I can to protect Title IX and the future of every girl in Washington state and around the country who dreams of making the team, wearing a uniform, or winning an athletic scholarship. I urge President Bush to protect existing Title IX policies and give every young girl in America the chance to experience the roar of a crowd – and not just cheer from the sidelines." Looks like “ follow the money" or at least save your seat.
DIAG made an ask of their followers to write to their congressman/women who signed. So I did a little research and found that “gem”. All of which I included in my note to her :-)
i read through many of the amici last week and kept wondering if Dems believe a word of what they say. this is all based on an abuse of language and “a lie agreed upon.” they really oughta be ashamed. and yeah, i’m a lifelong Dem from a long line of lifelong Dems and I’m a Dem political consultant.
i bring this up with my most trusted clients and their response always goes back to The Lie Agreed Upon—“i’m expected to uphold this blatant falsehood and that’s what i’ll do until further notice.” it makes me want to break things.
The Lie Agreed Upon, as unconscionable as that is, is a euphemism for something far darker: They simply don't believe women are worthy of sex-based rights. And if women don't have sex-based rights, they have no rights. The Dems hold abortion out as proof that they support women (while overlooking the fact that abortion also benefits men), but their actions of the last 15 years show that they don't even think of women as a distinct but equal sex class of human. How else to explain MN where it is illegal to have women's anything
exactly. i’ve witnessed utter contempt for women in an NGO setting, where they had a $5MM grant to agitate for reproductive rights in FL. I was doing marketing/comms for the group and was on location to photograph a protest/press conf on legislation pending in state legislature. as ppl were arriving and i was choosing gear to carry i got a call from the Exec Dir (a woman) requesting that I not include any “older women” or “post-menopausal women” in any photographic documentation.
i knew the older women at the event b/c they’re the same older women who’d shown up to EVERY women’s event for the last 10 yrs. there’d be no “reproductive rights” mvmt w/o older women showing up, to be seen.
this was a joint event btwn our group, a statewide group out of tampa, and Planned Parenthood.
i thought it was quite odd that 33% of the event (one of three speakers) was a young tran-identified woman…wearing a binder. this was the start of PP marketing their “gender affirming care” and they’d lumped that business line into their “reproductive rights” campaign. there was no pending legislation on gender affirming care. they were just marketing the service line. ugh.
[the reason they didn’t want documentation of the “post-menopausal” women was b/c this particular grant $$ was earmarked for “students” and the NGO saw the older women as a LIABILITY to their funding—young ppl never turned out to these events unless they were paid staff]
And one the signers of “boys belong in girl’s sports” is WA state Senator Patty Murray. Back in 2003 said this at press conference, February 2003?
"I remain committed to doing all that I can to protect Title IX and the future of every girl in Washington state and around the country who dreams of making the team, wearing a uniform, or winning an athletic scholarship. I urge President Bush to protect existing Title IX policies and give every young girl in America the chance to experience the roar of a crowd – and not just cheer from the sidelines." Looks like “ follow the money" or at least save your seat.
https://www.murray.senate.gov/murray-stands-up-for-women-and-girls-through-title-ix/
Wow, nice holding of those receipts! Guess I'm going to have to send this to Murray, as her memory may have lapsed
DIAG made an ask of their followers to write to their congressman/women who signed. So I did a little research and found that “gem”. All of which I included in my note to her :-)
Well done!
Thank you Anne!
i read through many of the amici last week and kept wondering if Dems believe a word of what they say. this is all based on an abuse of language and “a lie agreed upon.” they really oughta be ashamed. and yeah, i’m a lifelong Dem from a long line of lifelong Dems and I’m a Dem political consultant.
i bring this up with my most trusted clients and their response always goes back to The Lie Agreed Upon—“i’m expected to uphold this blatant falsehood and that’s what i’ll do until further notice.” it makes me want to break things.
The Lie Agreed Upon, as unconscionable as that is, is a euphemism for something far darker: They simply don't believe women are worthy of sex-based rights. And if women don't have sex-based rights, they have no rights. The Dems hold abortion out as proof that they support women (while overlooking the fact that abortion also benefits men), but their actions of the last 15 years show that they don't even think of women as a distinct but equal sex class of human. How else to explain MN where it is illegal to have women's anything
exactly. i’ve witnessed utter contempt for women in an NGO setting, where they had a $5MM grant to agitate for reproductive rights in FL. I was doing marketing/comms for the group and was on location to photograph a protest/press conf on legislation pending in state legislature. as ppl were arriving and i was choosing gear to carry i got a call from the Exec Dir (a woman) requesting that I not include any “older women” or “post-menopausal women” in any photographic documentation.
i knew the older women at the event b/c they’re the same older women who’d shown up to EVERY women’s event for the last 10 yrs. there’d be no “reproductive rights” mvmt w/o older women showing up, to be seen.
this was a joint event btwn our group, a statewide group out of tampa, and Planned Parenthood.
i thought it was quite odd that 33% of the event (one of three speakers) was a young tran-identified woman…wearing a binder. this was the start of PP marketing their “gender affirming care” and they’d lumped that business line into their “reproductive rights” campaign. there was no pending legislation on gender affirming care. they were just marketing the service line. ugh.
[the reason they didn’t want documentation of the “post-menopausal” women was b/c this particular grant $$ was earmarked for “students” and the NGO saw the older women as a LIABILITY to their funding—young ppl never turned out to these events unless they were paid staff]
Characterising the mythical genital checks and questioning of trans identifying males as discrimination against girls. Classic.
These briefs need to simply define the situation accurately: these are males who mimic females, and force the opposite side to claim they aren’t.
You can’t claim that these are not men, or that they don’t mimic women, or that a mimic is the same as what is mimicked.
All are manifestly obvious.
Just make gender irrelevant, make it exclusively about sex, and define them as sex mimics.
If we could even speak common sense like this, there would be no cases in front of the Supreme Court
Mimics have been blaring nonsense terminology so long most people have forgotten a very simple explanations for all of this.
Courts, however, like simple accurate provable definitions.