About So-Called Gender Identities . . .

Andrew Sullivan, pulling back the curtain to expose massive educational/governmental/health-care dysfunction that is encouraging exponentially increasing numbers of our children to seek irreversible surgery and a lifetime of powerful cross-sex hormones for their physically healthy bodies:

"What is gender identity? Since this very new term is now cemented in law, corporate practice, and now medicine as well, it’s a good question. Here is an official description from HRC, the biggest “queer” lobby:

"One’s innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves."

The key word, it seems to me, is neither. It means that your gender may not have anything to do with being male or female or on any kind of masculine/feminine spectrum. Your gender identity can be a tree, a fish, a Nazi, a puddle, or an earthworm — and these innermost identities must always be affirmed and be protected in law.

Like most decent people, I am more than fine with accepting that some people really do deeply feel that they are one sex and yet biologically are the opposite one. It’s rare, but very real, and I have long supported care and protection for this tiny minority of marginalized people we now call transgender. Mercifully, they are now covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Americans are on board: in a new poll, support for protecting transgender people from discrimination has 64 percent support and only 10 percent opposition.

But what on earth does it mean to identify as no human gender, neither male nor female nor a mix, but as, say, a tree — and use “tree” as a pronoun? You think I’m kidding, don’t you? Just making shit up to make it sound insane. But wait:

"Students are introduced to gender pronouns through the children’s book, “They, She, He: Easy as ABC.” The somewhat familiar pronoun ze is introduced, as are more bespoke possibilities. On one page, “Diego drums and dances. Tree has all the sounds” (tree is Diego’s preferred pronoun). For a character named Sky, all of the pronouns are right."

This is in a first-grade curriculum in Evanston/Skokie School District 65, a public-school system in the Chicago suburbs, as reported by Conor Friedersdorf. The pronoun “tree” has already been deployed by some as legitimate. I noted recently how, in another HRC-recommended book for kids, a baby “can’t decide what to be. Boy or girl? Bird or fish?” Yes: fish. The idea that children can identify as other species has now been approved in the education world. It’s being taught to your kids as truth. It is the Biden administration’s and “LGBTQ+” lobby’s view of what “gender identity” is.

It is anything you want it to be. And must always be affirmed by others."

Sullivan concludes:

[T]he term “gender identity” is so nebulous, so completely subjective, that it can be used to describe literally anything, any perversion, any mental illness, any deranged fantasy — like South Park’s Gerald Broflovski’s compulsion to become a dolphin. And it’s being used as a construct to tell first-graders that they can identify as a tree and a fish now. In public schools. With the full backing of the president and the Democratic Party.

I’m not nut-picking. I’m using the official description of “gender identity” to show that the term itself is nut-enabling. There are no limiting principles in a truly nebulous product of postmodernism now worming its way into our legal system.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingAbout So-Called Gender Identities . . .

The “Small” Things of the Past

I was minding my own business yesterday when a Swedish book publishing company asked whether it could use one of my photos (that it found on Flickr) on the cover of a new book. It's a photo I took at the Grand Canyon in 2014. The day I took this photo seems so long ago now. I have had a few other requests like this. I'm happy to make my photos available for small projects without payment, asking only for attribution. This delightful request reminded me an important principle: There is often a long time lag between the things we do and the moments where those little things gain greater meaning. Almost everything difficult that I do today would have been impossible without years or decades of cultivating friendships, work-relationships, skill-sets and hard-earned experience. That's because "compounding" is at play far outside of the financial realm. Compounding is one of the most important and least appreciated principles in our lives. Many of my recent happy occurrences are built off off dozens or hundreds of little things, many of them far in the past. It's not easy to see where the things we do today will lead. It might be worth our time to celebrate all the moments in our lives, including the small moments.

Continue ReadingThe “Small” Things of the Past

Obesity: One of the Many Problems We Refuse to Discuss that is Killing Many of Us.

I'm convinced that misguided empathy running amok is preventing us from dealing with many serious issues, even issues that are killing us. Here's an example: The problem with obesity.

Fifteen years ago, there was a lot of talk about the obesity epidemic. In 2008, Michelle Obama started a government program called “Let’s Move!” that sought to reduce childhood obesity. You might remember the First Lady teaming up with everyone from Beyonce to Big Bird to promote exercise and better eating habits. Unfortunately, the program was largely a failure. And the obesity statistics continued to rise.

74% of Americans today are either obese or overweight. And yet, we’re no longer talking about it. The national conversation around health and weight has turned away from things like good nutrition, weight loss and the importance of physical fitness, and instead adopted phrases like “fat acceptance” and “healthy at any size.” In some circles, there’s even blanket denial that there is anything unhealthy at all about being obese.

Shaming people for being overweight is unequivocally wrong. But in our attempt to not offend, we’ve lost sight of the very real fact that there’s a problem. Americans are heavier than ever, sicker than ever, dying earlier than ever, and it’s all preventable. So today, a conversation with Dr. Casey Means, a Stanford trained physician who left the traditional medical system behind to solve the one problem that she says is going to ruin us all: bad food.

This entire podcast episode hosted by Bari Weiss is riveting, filled with shocking statistics and demoralizing because this is a problem we can solve but won't.

Continue ReadingObesity: One of the Many Problems We Refuse to Discuss that is Killing Many of Us.

Today’s 5th Circuit Decision–Netchoice v Ken Paxton–Stuns Big Tech

Today's Netchoice opinion out of the 5th Circuit stuns Big Tech, which claimed that it had a First Amendment right to muzzle viewpoints of users. No you don't, said the Court. An excerpt:

A Texas statute named House Bill 20 generally prohibits large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of its speaker. The platforms urge us to hold that the statute is facially unconstitutional and hence cannot be applied to anyone at any time and under any circumstances.

In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of course, protects every person’s right to “the freedom of speech.” But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.

The implications of the platforms’ argument are staggering. On the platforms’ view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business. What’s worse, the platforms argue that a business can acquire a dominant market position by holding itself out as open to everyone—as Twitter did in championing itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.” Blue Br. at 6 & n.4. Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of “the modern public square,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017), Twitter unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community, Oral Arg. at 22:39–22:52.

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand for further proceedings.

In the meantime, during Congressional testimony, Facebook admits that it has been coordinating with the Whitehouse & CDC to censor FB users' constitutionally protected speech.

Continue ReadingToday’s 5th Circuit Decision–Netchoice v Ken Paxton–Stuns Big Tech