Tag Archives: #Transgender

Posted on by

The internet is forever . . . and so is stupidity. Journolists attempt to control the language to influence people's thinking

As regular readers — both of them — of The First Street Journal know, I have a tendency to do screen captures of things I suspect might be deleted. As Travis Lyles, “the first official Instagram Editor at The Washington Post,” now knows, the internet is forever.

    Washington Post adds ‘pregnant individuals’ to style guide

    by Luke Gentile, Social Media Producer | October 1, 2021 | 4:51 PM

    When referring to pregnancy, the Washington Post will strive to be more inclusive and use the term “pregnant individuals,” according to a Twitter post that has since been made private by the publication’s Instagram editor.

    “While biology dictates who can become pregnant, it does not always reflect gender identity,” the style manual reads. “If we say pregnant women, we exclude those who are transgender and nonbinary.”

    However, writers can’t use “pregnant individual” as a blanket term, as that would be at the expense of women who are already a marginalized group, according to the style guide.

    “If you are dealing with a situation in which you know the people identify as women , then you can appropriately use the phrase pregnant woman or pregnant women,” the directive stated. “In other situations, to be more inclusive, use pregnant women and other pregnant individuals.”

The Washington Examiner then included the screenshot of Mr Lyles Instagram post:

Washington Examiner screen capture of Travis Lyles’ Instagram post. Click to enlarge.

There’s more at the original.

So, what is the Washington Examiner? Originally a tabloid-sized daily in the nation’s capital, now a weekly publication and conservative website, it has been around for sixteen years now. Like The Washington Times, it originally hoped to supplant the post, but never did. Wikipedia has questioned its journalism, but at least here, Luke Gentile, the site’s social media producer, had the documentation.

Also see: Abigail Shrier, via Bari Weiss: Top Trans Doctors Blow the Whistle on ‘Sloppy’ Care

Conservatives routinely mock what journolists[1]The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their … Continue reading have been using as politically correct terminology, but it’s more than just political correctness at work here. It is a leftist attempt to normalize transgenderism, to normalize the cockamamie notion that, in the words of the Kinks, girls can be boys and boys can be girls.

We have previously noted how the left have been trying this, even altering a quote from liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the ACLU having to apologize for such obvious stupidity.

Even Mr Lyles recognized the biology, saying, “While biology dictates who can become pregnant, it does not always reflect gender identity,” a statement which attempts to decouple the as-long-as-we-have-had-language associations between man and male, woman and female. The control of language is the control of ideas, something the left well know, and something we must resist to preserve the common sense of millennia of known human language and history. The left are attempting to prey on conservatives’ sense of courtesy against us, to get conservatives, and everyone else, used to the idea of transgenderism as somehow being normal and acceptable, as a way to undermine our thinking and our ideology.

It’s simple: it is better to be discourteous than suborned.

References

References
↑1 The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity. I use the term ‘journolism’ frequently when writing about media bias.
Posted on by

Biology is politically incorrect The control of language is the control of thought

Click to enlarge.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) used to be an organization which actually had some real intellectual heft to it, but not anymore.

The ACLU sent out a ridiculous tweet, changing the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s statement to make it more 21st century politically correct. A screen capture of the tweet is to the right, just in case the ACLU decide to send it down the rabbit hole, but you can view the original at the previous link.

Well, now the ACLU has apologized for being so stupid, but The New York Times subheading said that yes, it was a mistake, “albeit a well-intentioned one.” Is there such a thing as a well-intentioned mistake?

    A.C.L.U. Apologizes for Tweet That Altered Quote by Justice Ginsburg

    The organization acknowledged that changing references from women to people was a mistake — albeit a well-intentioned one.

    by Michael Powell | Monday, September 27, 2021

    Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Monday that he regretted that a tweet sent out recently by his organization altered the words of a well-known quote by the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    The A.C.L.U. tweet, which was sent out Sept. 18, changed Justice Ginsburg’s words, replacing each of her references to women with “person,” “people” or a plural pronoun in brackets. Justice Ginsburg, who died last year, is a revered figure in liberal and feminist circles and directed the A.C.L.U.’s Women’s Rights Project from its founding in 1972 until she became a federal judge in 1980.

    The tweet by the A.C.L.U. occasioned mockery and some anger on social media from feminists and others.

    “We won’t be altering people’s quotes,” Mr. Romero said in an interview on Monday evening. “It was a mistake among the digital team. Changing quotes is not something we ever did.”

    Mr. Romero first noted his regrets in an interview with Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times columnist, who wrote a column that spoke to the danger of trying to “change the nature of reality through language alone.”

There’s more at the original, but it all stems from the cockamamie notion that ‘transgender men’ are actually men, something that both the ACLU and the Times have swallowed whole.

    The A.C.L.U., he said, could have touched on this emerging reality, one that involves identity, gender and language, without tampering with Justice Ginsburg’s quote. “In today’s America,” he said, “language sometimes needs to be rethought.”

Does it? Mr Romero has just said, apparently with a completely straight face, that men can be pregnant. This divorces the word “man” from the biological description “male”, because reproductive biology is such that the male impregnates the female, and females are the ones who become pregnant. Biology is just so politically incorrect!

Of course, Mr Romero said the quiet part out loud. “In today’s America, language sometimes needs to be rethought” means what I have always said, that the control of language is the control of thought. The ‘party of science’ is actually the party of silliness.

In the year 2525, if man is still alive, some anthropologist might excavate the remains of Bradley Manning, the former soldier who now calls himself Chelsea. With so many records destroyed in the third World War, the anthropologist will be trying to figure out what went on in the 21st century. With the soft tissues gone, the anthropologist will examine the skeletal structure of the subject, and record in his notes, “The subject was male.” Then, finding a little bit of DNA has survived, he will classify it, and again write, “The subject was male.” Why? Because he will be using objective, scientific criteria, based on the slightly different skeletal structures of males and females — children have to be able to pass through a woman’s pelvis — and DNA, which differentiates males, with XY chromosomes, and females, who have XX chromosomes. Mr Manning’s subsequent claim to be a woman is not objective, but subjective.

Michelle Goldberg wrote, also in the Times:

    What’s more difficult to discuss is how making Ginsburg’s words gender-neutral alters their meaning. That requires coming to terms with a contentious shift in how progressives think and talk about sex and reproduction. Changing Ginsburg’s words treats what was once a core feminist insight — that women are oppressed on the basis of their reproductive capacity — as an embarrassing anachronism. The question then becomes: Is it?

    The case for making the language of reproduction gender-neutral is fairly straightforward. Beatie may have been the first pregnant man that the public was aware of, but he was obviously not the last. If access to birth control, abortion and obstetric care are fraught for women, they can be even more fraught for trans men and nonbinary people, who must contend with discrimination and challenges to their gender identity.

    Plenty of activists, especially young ones, find gender-neutral language for reproduction, and the conceptual revolution it represents, liberating. The utopian goal of many feminists, after all, is a society that’s not built around the gender binary, a type of society that, as far as I know, exists nowhere on earth (though many cultures make room for a small number of people who exist outside the male/female dichotomy).

    A gender-inclusive understanding of reproduction is in keeping with the goal of a society free of sex hierarchies. It is one thing to insist that women shouldn’t be relegated to second-class status because they can bear children. It’s perhaps more radical to define sex and gender so that childbearing is no longer women’s exclusive domain.

Actually, it’s perhaps more stupid to define sex and gender so that childbearing is no longer women’s exclusive domain.

Liberal thought and ideas of sexual equality have devolved to the point at which it must be denied that the two sexes exist and are different from each other. There is no society and no language on earth in which the words for “men” and “women” are decoupled from the words for “male” and “female”, but that is what the left are trying to accomplish these days, as though changes of language can make changes in reality.

Jared Jennings, a boy who claims to be a girl, calling himself “Jazz,” was the star of a television show documenting his family’s and his struggle to be seen as a girl. In a strange article in Teen Vogue, reality intrudes in a subtle way:

    Among other things, she talks about what it’s like to date as a transgender teen, and proves that though strides have been made, there’s still more work to do in building understanding (and tolerance) for the LGBTQ community.

    “For the most part boys aren’t really accepting of me because I am transgender and therefore not many guys have crushes on me at my school,” she tells Oprah. “They think if they like me they will be called gay by their friends because they like another ‘boy.'”

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, it is because the boys in his school didn’t see him as the girl he claimed to be, but saw him as another boy, one who just happens to be messed up in the head. At the time of the article, published on February 2, 2016, he still had a penis and testicles, though puberty blockers had kept them at pre-adolescent development. Let’s be brutally honest here: what heterosexual boy would want to ‘date’ someone who has a penis and testicles?

    There are many, many layers here to dissect, but let’s just keep it simple: there’s obviously still a big misunderstanding of what makes someone a boy or a girl, and to be honest, at that age we often only know what we’re taught. Jazz is a girl, and that her classmates are trying to keep her boxed into her life before her transition is cruel and underscores the need for more education about sex, gender, and sexuality. At the same time, it’s equally unsettling is that Jazz’s classmates still fear being called gay. It’s not an insult!

Brianna Wiest, the article author, took two assumptions in that paragraph:

  1. That Jared Jennings is a girl, which is objectively untrue, and which his classmates did not see as being true; and
  2. That it isn’t an insult to be called homosexual, which many people do see as such.

This is a real problem for the left: they make these declarative statements, assume them to be completely true, and further assume that that is the end of the discussion. Yet reality, which Mr Jennings’ classmates saw all too clearly, intrudes, as only reality can.

But it is a real problem for conservatives as well, because the more we accept, without objection, the changes in language that the left are trying to emplace and enforce, the more the left are allowed to order our thoughts, and thus control our thoughts. This is why The First Street Journal’s Stylebook is so adamant on not referring to homosexuals and homosexuality as “gay,” and on referring to the ‘transgendered’ by their birth names, if known, and actual sex; I will not consent to the use of incorrect terms.

It could be argued that I am being an [insert slang term for the rectum here] by refusing to refer to Jared Jennings, Bradley Manning and Bruce Jenner by the names and gendered pronouns they prefer; it certainly isn’t polite. But reality isn’t polite, and the truth isn’t polite; reality and truth simply are, and I would rather be seen as impolite than as a liar.

Posted on by

The solution to transgender bathroom issues from an unusual place Who'd have ever guessed that it would come from the Vatican?

In late June of 2016, the Pico family toured the Vatican. Lots of history, tradition and great art, about which thousands and thousands of people have previously written; it’s a subject on which I have little more to contribute.

But there is one very unexpected quirk I saw, just before we left, that addresses a problem for today. Near a public cafeteria were the public restrooms. Entering the men’s room, I noticed the typical urinals along one wall, some in use, and a middle-aged female janitor cleaning, while the restroom was in use. Well, that’s pretty European, I thought.

Then I got to the stalls. Unlike what we see in the United States, the stalls in that men’s room had walls and doors which were essentially floor-to-ceiling, providing complete privacy. And that’s the solution to the stupidity we are seeing in the United States these days. Continue reading →

Posted on by

What could possibly go wrong?

As we have previously noted, while we might forgive His Majesty King Henry VIII for believing that Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn were somehow responsible for his first two children being daughters, the role of the X and Y chromosomes in determining the sex of mammals, including humans, has been known for over a century. Sex is not somehow “assigned” at birth; sex is determined at conception, depending upon whether the sperm which fertilized the egg carries the X or Y chromosome. We recognize the sex of a newborn child by visual examination of the child, but the characteristics which indicate sex developed long before birth, during gestation, as programmed in by the developing child’s DNA.

When you read or hear someone talking about sex being assigned at birth, you know automatically the pure bovine feces is about to follow. From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

Continue reading →

Posted on by

And people wonder why conservatives don’t trust the left Liberals, some of whom claim to be Christians, sure hate them some freedom of religion!

One would have thought that the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) would have chastened liberals that people’s religious freedom is, and ought to be protected, but, Alas!, it appears to have emboldened the left even more.

The Court decided, 7-2, with liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joining the majority, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with hostility to the religious beliefs of Jack Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ‘marriage’ ceremony.[1]Yes, you may infer from my placing the word ‘marriage’ in single quotation marks that I do not believe that, though legal, a homosexual ‘marriage’ constitutes a real marriage. Mr Phillips does not believe that homosexual ‘marriages are legitimate, and that baking a wedding cake for such would violate his religious freedom rights.

What the Court failed to do is to rule, explicitly, that Mr Phillips’ actions were protected by the First Amendment, and to some on the left, that provided an opening. From The Victory Girls:

Court Rules Masterpiece Must Bake The Cake

by Nina Bookout | Thursday, June 17, 2021

Bake the cake! That’s the ruling from a Denver judge yesterday regarding Masterpiece Cakeshop and owner Jack Phillips.

According to Denver District Court Judge A. Bruce Jones, Jack Phillips can be compelled by law to go against his conscience and beliefs to bake the cake the customer demands. 

In Tuesday’s ruling, Denver District Judge A. Bruce Jones said Autumn Scardina was denied a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to celebrate her gender transition on her birthday because of her transgender status in violation of the law. While Jack Phillips said he could not make the cake because of its message, Jones said the case was about a refusal to sell a product, not compelled speech.

He pointed out that Phillips testified during a trial in March that he did not think someone could change their gender and he would not celebrate “somebody who thinks that they can.”

“The anti-discrimination laws are intended to ensure that members of our society who have historically been treated unfairly, who have been deprived of even the every-day right to access businesses to buy products, are no longer treated as ‘others,‘” Jones wrote.

There is OH SO MUCH WRONG with this judge’s ruling!

First of all, Autumn Scardina deliberately sought Jack Phillips out. It is no coincidence that Scardina went to Jack Phillips business the very afternoon after the United States Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ appeal.

Scardina wanted, no demanded, that Jack Phillips make a specific gender transition cake. He refused to do so and, as he’s done before, offered an alternative. Scardina refused. But THEN called back and demanded he bake the cake that shows Satan smoking a joint. Phillips again refused to do so. Scardina complained to the state civil rights commission.

Here’s what Judge Jones refused to consider, IMO, regarding this case. Scardina’s deliberate targeting of Jack Phillips.

It’s not clear exactly why Ms. Scardina wanted a cake featuring Satan, apart from provoking him. When asked why she ordered the Satan cake, she said she wanted to believe Mr. Phillips was a “good person” and hoped to persuade him to see the “errors of his thinking.” That’s some deal for someone you say is a “good person”: Change your thinking or I will try to ruin you.

But according to Jones, Scardina’s request/demand of Jack Phillips was not a set up.

And that, my friends, is a boatload of horseshit.

First of all, Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission got smacked down hard by SCOTUS on the case. Secondly, even though Jack Phillips was handed a victory, the lawsuit by Scardina was allowed to proceed. Which, as is publicly known, Scardina did deliberately target Jack Phillips, and an activist judge bought into it.

It’s simple: Charlie Scardina[2]In accordance with The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we always refer to those who claim to be ‘transgender’ by their birth name and with the pronouns appropriate to their … Continue reading is attempting to use ‘lawfare‘ to either force Mr Phillips to knuckle under and go along with the cockamamie notion that girls can be boys and boys can be girls, or to drive him broke and out of business. Beliefs in opposition to what the left say they must be cannot be tolerated.

Live and let live? Not something with which the left agree!

Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented in the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, but Mrs Ginsburg has now gone to her eternal reward, and been replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, a strong supporter of religious freedom.

Now the Court has struck another blow for the free exercise of religion:

U.S. Supreme Court denounces Philly for dropping religious foster agency over same-sex marriage stance

The ruling described the city’s 2018 move to end its relationship with Catholic Social Services as unconstitutional.

by Jeremy Roebuck and Julia Terruso | June 17, 2021 | 10:38 AM EDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday condemned Philadelphia’s decision to end a long-standing contract with a Catholic social services agency due to its refusal to consider same-sex married couples as potential foster parents.

In a unanimous decision, the justices described the city’s 2018 move to end its relationship with Catholic Social Services, which had cited its religious beliefs about marriage in refusing to work with LGBTQ couples, as unconstitutional.

The ruling is the latest in a series of decisions favoring religious rights since the emergence of a more conservative high court during the administration of former President Donald Trump. But the court’s more liberal justices also signed on to the decision.

It’s likely to reverberate nationwide, with implications for anti-discrimination clauses in government contracts, particularly in the social services sector, where religious providers are common. . . . .

The agency argued that it views the certification of couples as good candidates for fostering children as an “endorsement of the relationship,” and therefore its religious beliefs prevent it from certifying LGBTQ partnerships. Catholic Social Services also noted that it doesn’t work with unmarried couples, either.

There’s more at the original. I anticipate an editorial in The Philadelphia Inquirer denouncing this decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, and, citing Masterpiece Cakeshop, said, “Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.” This, to me, is hugely important, because it actually goes beyond Masterpiece; it holds that even a facially neutral regulation — there is no claim that the city of Philadelphia acted with hostility, as is the case with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in Masterpiece — that is “intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature” cannot withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

It is clear that, should the case between Mr Scardina and Masterpiece Cakeshop proceed to the Supreme Court, Mr Phillips will, once again, win; Mr Scardina is not, by the refusal of Mr Phillips to bake his ridiculous cake, prevented from having his ‘transition’ cake to celebrate his birthday baked at all. It is simply that Mr Phillips will not bake it. In Fulton v Philadelphia, it was made clear that, Catholic Social Services not being the only provider of foster care and adoption referrals, homosexual couples or unmarried persons would not be denied the possibility of becoming foster or adoptive parents,[3]It is the opinion of The First Street Journal that only legally married heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children, though I would make an exception for unmarried persons who are … Continue reading and the Inquirer article notes that Bethany Christian Services chose to change its Christian-based policies to continue to provide such services to the city.

There is a significant difference between conservatives and the left here. Conservatives have not been trying to prevent Mr Scardina from having anyone bake his pink-inside-of-blue cake; they simply hold that if a particular individual does not want to bake it, that is his right. We are (mostly) willing to live and let live. I have no objection to Mr Scardina calling himself a woman; I simply would not call him one myself, and I would object to any government regulation specifying that I must do so.

For the left, that ain’t good enough. The left want to use the force of government and the police power of the state to require everyone to go along with their particular beliefs, even trying to consume Harry Potter author J K Rowling, a very liberal woman herself, for not being #woke enough to accept the notion of transgenderism.

This is why surrendering to the left on language is such a bad idea; ever inch given leads to another mile demanded. Even as conservative an author as Mrs Bookout gave in to the language of the left by referring to Mr Scardina as “she” at one point. My Stylebook has not been adopted by any other source of which I am aware, but conservatives should look at it, and consider following it as they can.

References

References
↑1 Yes, you may infer from my placing the word ‘marriage’ in single quotation marks that I do not believe that, though legal, a homosexual ‘marriage’ constitutes a real marriage.
↑2 In accordance with The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we always refer to those who claim to be ‘transgender’ by their birth name and with the pronouns appropriate to their biological sex. From the references I have found, “Charlie” appears to be Mr Scardina’s birthname, but the references do not actually specify that.
↑3 It is the opinion of The First Street Journal that only legally married heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children, though I would make an exception for unmarried persons who are already close relatives, as long as they are heterosexual.
Posted on by

Resistance is not futile. I will not be assimilated.

Is National Public Radio supposed to be an advocacy reporting organization? Is NPR supposed to push a particular political point of view?

NPR’s Laurel Wamsley, who purports to be a journalist, wrote an article entitled A Guide To Gender Identity Terms, in which she presented the “proper use of gender identity terms.”

Issues of equality and acceptance of transgender and nonbinary people — along with challenges to their rights — have become a major topic in the headlines. These issues can involve words and ideas and identities that are new to some.

That’s why we’ve put together a glossary of terms relating to gender identity. Our goal is to help people communicate accurately and respectfully with one another.

Proper use of gender identity terms, including pronouns, is a crucial way to signal courtesy and acceptance. Alex Schmider, associate director of transgender representation at GLAAD, compares using someone’s correct pronouns to pronouncing their name correctly – “a way of respecting them and referring to them in a way that’s consistent and true to who they are.”

This guide was created with help from GLAAD. We also referenced resources from the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Trans Journalists Association, NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ Journalists, Human Rights Campaign, InterAct and the American Psychological Association. This guide is not exhaustive, and is Western and U.S.-centric. Other cultures may use different labels and have other conceptions of gender.

Yeah, that’s an unbiased group!

But, Mr Schmider did tell the truth in one important way. Using a ‘transgendered persons’ preferred pronouns and sexual identity terms is meant to be “respecting them and referring to them in a way that’s consistent and true to who they are.” Miss Wamsley put it as “a crucial way to signal courtesy and acceptance.” At bottom, it is an attempt to coerce “acceptance” by claiming it is only courtesy.

The unasked question is — and the author never added anything in to her article which would have paid any attention to those who disagree — what if someone does not accept the idea that Bruce Jenner is really now a woman, or that anyone can somehow change his sex?

It begins with a falsehood. “Sex,” Miss Wamsley wrote, “refers to a person’s biological status and is typically assigned at birth, usually on the basis of external anatomy. Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex.” This is wholly untrue. While we might forgive His Majesty King Henry VIII for believing that Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn were somehow responsible for his first two children being daughters, the role of the X and Y chromosomes in determining the sex of mammals, including humans, has been known for over a century. Sex is not somehow “assigned” at birth; sex is determined at conception, depending upon whether the sperm which fertilized the egg carries the X or Y chromosome. We recognize the sex of a newborn child by visual examination of the child, but the characteristics which indicate sex developed long before birth, during gestation, as programmed in by the developing child’s DNA.

When you read or hear someone talking about sex being assigned at birth, you know automatically the pure bovine feces is about to follow.

Everyone has pronouns that are used when referring to them – and getting those pronouns right is not exclusively a transgender issue.

“Pronouns are basically how we identify ourselves apart from our name. It’s how someone refers to you in conversation,” says Mary Emily O’Hara, a communications officer at GLAAD. “And when you’re speaking to people, it’s a really simple way to affirm their identity.”

“So, for example, using the correct pronouns for trans and nonbinary youth is a way to let them know that you see them, you affirm them, you accept them and to let them know that they’re loved during a time when they’re really being targeted by so many discriminatory anti-trans state laws and policies,” O’Hara says.

“It’s really just about letting someone know that you accept their identity. And it’s as simple as that.”

Well, yes it is . . . and I don’t. When Bruce Jenner tells me that he is now a woman, I do not believe him and I do not accept his claims. To refer to him as “Caitlyn,” to use the feminine pronouns in reference to him, is to concede something I do not and will not concede; it would be both lying to him, leading him to believe that I went along with his claims, and it would be lying to myself.

But, at least Miss Wamsley was sort of asking us to use the terms the transgender would like. It was November 29, 2018, that The New York Times granted OpEd space to Chad Malloy[1]Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be a woman, going by the name ‘Parker’ Malloy. to publish an article claiming that Twitter’s ban on ‘deadnaming’ and misgendering[2]‘Deadnaming’ refers to using the name a person was given at birth, such as Chad Malloy rather than his faux name of ‘Parker’ Malloy, while misgendering means referring to … Continue reading actually promotes free speech rather than stifling it. On October 4, 2019, the Times published an OpEd by staffer Andrew J Marantz, entitled Free Speech Is Killing Us. Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

Messrs Marantz and Malloy obviously believe that what hey can do about it is simply to ban any publication of speech with which they disagree. If I say that no, Mr Malloy is not a woman, I have not harmed him, at least not beyond hurting his precious little feelings, nor have I prevented anyone else from going along with his claims of being a woman; all that I would be doing is being truthful to myself.

It does not matter how well or how poorly this article is written; neither The New York Times nor any other outlet of the credentialed media would ever publish it, because they have established transgenderism as part of their core beliefs. In publishing Miss Wamsley’s article in its present form, it becomes clear that NPR has done so as well.

To control language is to control the terms of the debate, and the credentialed media clearly believe that if they can just get people to refer to Bradley Manning as ‘Chelsea,’ to get people to use the preferred gender identity pronouns and terms in reference to the ‘transgendered,’ such concessions will go a long way to validating their argument.

But I will not, and I urge others to look at what they are saying, and how they are saying it, and not to go along with the left’s attempts at controlling speech.
______________________________________
Cross posted on American Free News Network.

References

References
↑1 Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be a woman, going by the name ‘Parker’ Malloy.
↑2 ‘Deadnaming’ refers to using the name a person was given at birth, such as Chad Malloy rather than his faux name of ‘Parker’ Malloy, while misgendering means referring to someone by his biological sex rather than his preferred ‘gender identity.’
Posted on by

Journolism: The Brown Daily Herald decides to hide the truth.

The Brown Daily Herald is the student newspaper for Brown University, a hoitiest of the toitiest Ivy League college, founded in 1764 as the College in the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and is the seventh oldest college in the United States. Highly selective, Brown accepts only the best of the best, or president’s daughters, and even they can get kicked out for poor academic performance.

So it was with some amusement that I read this, with a hat tip to my good friend Hube:

Editors’ note: Changing deadnames and pronouns

By 131th Editorial Board[1]Editors’ Notes are written by The Herald’s 131st editorial board: Kayla Guo ’22.5, Henry Dawson ’22.5, Li Goldstein ’22, Emilija Sagaityte ’22, Kate Ok ’22, Emily Teng ’22 and Kamran … Continue reading | Monday, May 17, 2021

In order to respect individuals’ current and lived identities, The Herald has adopted a new policy regarding requests from transgender or nonbinary individuals to replace their deadname and/or change their pronouns featured in previously published work on The Herald’s website. Upon receiving such a request, The Herald will make the gender-affirming changes online in a timely manner and without a correction or editor’s note marking the change.

It is normal journalistic procedure to note corrections made to articles, so the Herald is telling readers that it will not abide by what the journalism students are (supposedly) being taught by their professors.[2]The 131th Editorial Board members, being in their late teens and early twenties, may never have heard of JournoList, from which I have taken the word ‘journolism.’

This policy is intended to respect transgender and nonbinary individuals. We will not include an editor’s note announcing the gender-affirming change(s) made in response to such a request because we believe such a note would risk outing the individual and causing harm. Because the information included in the article was accurate at the time of publishing, we do not feel this raises questions about transparency or accountability.

What does that even mean? If “the information included in the article was accurate” at the time of publication,[3]Note that I have corrected their grammar. Journalism students should not have such poor grammar. then it was accurate, and this editorial change is one which makes the article inaccurate. If “the information included in the article was accurate” at the time of publication, then declining to note such is the opposite of “transparency or accountability.” Accountability means taking responsibility for one’s actions; the Editorial Board are deliberately refusing accountability.

How, I have to ask, does changing a story, without issuing a notice of correction, avoid “outing the individual and causing harm”? Clearly, if the person in question identified as one sex at the time the story was written, and another later on, that story has gone deep into the archives. Almost no one would see the old story unless he were searching for it, and a search for Cindy Brown is not going to result in a story about Carl Brown. The Editorial Board are sacrificing journalistic integrity for no reason at all.

We think this policy reflects both our commitment to accuracy and our ethical obligation to minimize harm. We are eager to see how other newsrooms, both our student peers and at professional news organizations, address this and similar questions in the coming months and years.

As we have noted concerning the Lexington Herald-Leader’s and McClatchy’s (apparent) policies in general, withholding information is both a deliberate inaccuracy and can promote actual harm.

Journalists have a self-assumed duty to the truth; what the Editorial Board are doing is to deliberately obscure the truth. If John Smith was publicly identifying as John Smith at the time of the news story, it becomes wholly inaccurate to change his name to Jane Smith just because he has decided that he is a she now. The news story was about the situation at the time, and includes how other people saw and reacted to John Smith, not Jane Smith.

A great truth of which the Editorial Board may be unaware: people react differently to males and females, and this is part of the news.

One would hope that “how other newsrooms, both our student peers and at professional news organizations, address this and similar questions in the coming months and years,” is to address such issues is by doing something really radical, like telling the truth. The Editorial Board of The Brown Daily Herald have apparently decided that telling the truth is far less important than being #woke and trendy.

References

References
↑1 Editors’ Notes are written by The Herald’s 131st editorial board: Kayla Guo ’22.5, Henry Dawson ’22.5, Li Goldstein ’22, Emilija Sagaityte ’22, Kate Ok ’22, Emily Teng ’22 and Kamran King ’22
↑2 The 131th Editorial Board members, being in their late teens and early twenties, may never have heard of JournoList, from which I have taken the word ‘journolism.’
↑3 Note that I have corrected their grammar. Journalism students should not have such poor grammar.
Posted on by

Journolism: The Philadelphia Inquirer uncritically pushes transgenderism

When The Philadelphia Inquirer fired accepted the resignation of Executive Editor Stan Wischnowski due to pressure from the #woke staffers over his article title “Buildings Matter, Too,” it seems as though the last of the adults left the newspaper. Senior Editor Gabriel Escobar certainly hasn’t shown any leadership, nor has Charlotte Sutton, Assistant Managing Editor, Health, Business & Built Environment, if they let this kind of drivel be published:

These Penn State students are tackling the issue of period poverty on their own campus

A campus-wide survey found 13% of students who menstruate have skipped class or work because they didn’t have access to period products at Penn State.

By Bethany Ao | May 18, 2021

Last fall, when Jess Strait became president of a Penn State club focused on eliminating stigma associated with menstruation, one of her goals was to find out how period poverty — the inability to afford sanitary products — was affecting her fellow classmates.

Inspired by the work of No More Secrets, a Mount Airy nonprofit that delivers menstrual care packages around Philadelphia, Strait, a 20-year-old rising senior, and her team at the Days for Girls club drafted a short survey of 10 open-ended questions about menstruation. What they found shocked them.

Of the approximately 500 students surveyed, 13% have skipped class or work because they didn’t have the products they need.

If you apply that rate to the entire student body, Strait said, “that should be at least 2,500 undergraduates who are missing classes and not getting the most of their education because they don’t have period products.”

I’ve seen stories like this for years, and yes, I’m male, but as a man who has lived with a woman for 49 years, and the father of daughters, I’ve seen how women adapt to the fact that they have periods, and learn to carry “period products” with them as their cycles near menstruation.

I get it: sometimes women do get caught by surprise when it comes to their periods. Miss Ao’s article has to do with the availability of “period products” on campus, and the claim that some women are unable to afford them. I have no comments about such things.

But what got me about the article was the verbiage used. This paragraph illustrates it:

A study by researchers at George Mason University’s College of Health and Human Services published in February found that one in 10 college students who menstruate reported chronic period poverty, which means that they struggled to pay for basic products each month. And 14% had trouble paying for menstrual products within the last year.

LOL! “(C)ollege students who menstruate”? Wouldn’t they be known as women?

Oops, that’s what got J K Rowling in such trouble.

Miss Ao did use some unwoke language in places, the very next paragraph using the word “woman” thrice, but it wasn’t too much further down that she wrote “At Penn State, the Days for Girls club conducted their own survey of more than 500 students who menstruate.” How incredibly unwoke that organization must be, using the term “Girls”, and thus excluding the “men who menstruate” from their membership and services!

“That was something that had been under our radar before this semester,” (Miss Strait) said. “In the free response questions we had several students who don’t identify as women and sometimes in their bathrooms there wasn’t a trash can, at all. They might have to carry a product with them to dispose of later. The fact that those communities are kind of being put at risk … was really alarming to us.”

The article went on to note that Indiana University supplies free “period products” in all public bathrooms, including men’s bathrooms, but, alas! some colleges do not.

Let me be clear on this: people who menstruate are women, are female. No male has ever had, or ever will have, a period, because menstruation is a biological function limited to females. We can forgive Miss Ao for reporting that Miss Strait was concerned about female “students who don’t identify as women,” because that’s Miss Strait’s belief, not the reporter’s. But Miss Ao uncritically used the term “students who menstruate” in paragraphs which were no quotations of someone else, and that is something which pushes the cockamamie agenda that girls can be boys and boys can be girls.

A real editor would have ‘blue penciled’ that, but there is little evidence that The Philadelphia Inquirer has any real editors anymore.

Posted on by

Speaking truth to power means telling the truth I will not tell lies just to not hurt someone's feelings

I found this on Twitter:

It would not surprise me that Richard Levine, a mentally ill male who thinks he’s a woman and calls himself “Rachel,” wanted to do that, but it appears that the Associated Press has retracted the article:

AP Retracts Article About Biden’s New Assistant Secretary Of Health Declaring “Hostile Misgendering” A Mental Illness

By Clover Chronicle | January 20, 2021

An article that was reportedly posted by mainstream news media outlet Associated Press (AP) revealed how Rachel Levine – President Joe Biden’s pick for Assistant Secretary of Health – is vowing to make “hostile misgendering” a mental illness under his administration’s new health guidelines.

Title: Biden’s pick for Assistant Secretary of Health vows to make “hostile misgendering” a mental illness under administration’s new health guidelines

Summary: Rachel Levine, herself a Transgender women [sic], has been appointed as assistant secretary of health and has vowed to save America’s Trans kids from misgendering

It has to be conceded that the whole thing could have been faked. Some enterprising hacker could have put the whole ting together and inserted it on the AP site. But, as we have previously noted, Joe Biden wants to ‘normalize’ transgenderism, and The New York Times, which so vigorously protected its own First Amendment rights in New York Times Co v United States, wants to limit the freedom of speech for other people and, more specifically, supports bans on ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering.’[1]‘Misgendering,’ as used by the credentialed media, means referring to a ‘transgender’ person with pronouns or other forms of address which claim that person to be his … Continue reading

Let me be clear here: while some claim that going along with a ‘transgendered’ person’s preferred pronouns and name is simply a matter of being polite, to me it is an attempt to coerce people to lie. More, by pushing people to lie, the credentialed media are attempting to turn a lie into accepted truth.

I will not participate in such.

Dr Levine has been Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Health under Governor Tom Wolf (D-PA), and, with the coronavirus outbreak, has been in the news rather a lot for the last ten months. While The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Commonwealth’s ‘newspaper of record,’ noted Dr Levine as being ‘transgender’ in the stories about his appointment by Mr Biden, due to the ‘historic nature’ of it, in stories not related to the appointment, Dr Levine is simply referred to by his assumed name, and referred to with the feminine pronouns.

While the AP story about Dr Levine wanting to define “hostile misgendering” as a “mental illness” might be a fake, he might well consider it to be:

Pa. health secretary denounces transphobic attacks: ‘Our children are watching’

by Sara Simon | July 28, 2020

HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania’s top health official on Tuesday denounced a recent series of transphobic attacks against her, saying she felt compelled to personally address the discrimination.

“While these individuals may think that they are only expressing their displeasure with me, they are in fact hurting the thousands of LGBTQ Pennsylvanians who suffer directly from these current demonstrations of harassment,” Health Secretary Rachel Levine said at a news briefing.

“I have no room in my heart for hatred,” she said. “And frankly, I do not have time for intolerance.” . . . .

In her remarks, Levine expressed the need for Pennsylvanians to “work towards a spirit of not just tolerance, but a spirit of acceptance and welcoming,” and told LGBTQ youth, “It is OK to be you.”

“Our children are watching,” she said. “They are watching what we do. And they are watching how we act.”

Yes, our children are watching, and Dr Levine knows that if parents go along with the cockamamie notion that a person can change his sex, just to be polite, it will subtly educate their children to believe that ‘transgenderism’ is normal, positive and real.

This is Orwellian Ministry of Truth stuff. If the credentialed media repeat the lie often enough, if the New York City Commission on Human Rights can force people to use the ‘transgendered’s’ preferred forms of address, it is normalizing the notion to try to turn a lie into the truth.

In the year 2525, if man is still alive following a nuclear holocaust, some enterprising anthropologist, trying to find clues as to what society was like back in the 21th century, is going to come across the grave of Dr Levine. Exhuming the remains, he will do detailed measurements of the skeleton, the soft tissue having long ago decayed away, and state, from the hip structure, “The subject was male.” Going further, this scientist will be able to extract some DNA from the remains, run an analysis, and state, having found the subject had XY chromosomes, “The subject is confirmed as having been male.”

In the year 3535
Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies
Everything you think, do, and say
Is in the pill you took today

It seems that Zager and Evans were overly optimistic that it would take so long; Twitter, The Philadelphia Inquirer, really all of the credentialed media, the government of New York City, all want to be the pill that governs everything you think, do, and say.

Well, Dr Levine and Bruce Jenner and Bradley Manning can call themselves whatever they want; that’s their right. But it is my right not to go along with their delusions, and I will not. I will do as I always have done; I will speak the truth.

References

References
↑1 ‘Misgendering,’ as used by the credentialed media, means referring to a ‘transgender’ person with pronouns or other forms of address which claim that person to be his biological sex rather than the sex he claims to be. At The First Street Journal, misgendering is referring to a ‘transgender’ person by the sex he claims to be rather than his actual, biological sex. ‘Deadnaming,’ according to the credentialed media, means referring to a person by his given name at birth rather than the name he claims to be following ‘transition.’ The First Street Journal’s Stylebook notes that we always refer to a ‘transgender’ person by his given name at birth rather than the name he claims.