Re: Indiana 'Trans' Fight Absurd? It Was Also Predictable

In article <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Very happy to see Swallwell fail after his immature ignorant behavior with a Chink whore spy.
>
> Monkey Pox, right on time to give Democrats an excuse to cheat in the next election.

“Indiana’s legal fight highlights the absurdity of the 
transgender movement,” reads the headline. The MUSS (Made-up 
Sexual Status, aka “transgender”) agenda certainly is absurd. 
But did it come out of nowhere?

Or is it an outgrowth of absurdities accepted long ago?

The Washington Examiner ran the above headline, and its Zachary 
Faria writes:

Indiana is mired in a legal fight over transgender athletes, and 
every detail is more absurd than the last.

The state’s ban on men and boys playing on women’s and girls’ 
sports teams is being challenged in court. A federal judge ruled 
that a 10-year-old boy must be allowed to rejoin his girls’ 
softball team, not even a month after Indiana’s ban took effect. 
The law was passed over the veto of GOP Gov. Eric Holcomb, who 
ludicrously claimed back in March that the current policies put 
in place by the state made the law unnecessary, because no male 
athletes had tried to compete in women’s sports before.

Now, after just one case, Indiana’s law is being dragged through 
the courts. Holcomb had claimed the law wasn’t necessary; 
instead, it looks like the law wasn’t even sufficient.

This legal fight was picked by the American Civil Liberties 
Union, a left-wing activist group that thinks that all men 
should be allowed to play in women’s sports. The ACLU of Indiana 
claimed after this initial victory that it is “misinformation 
about biology and gender” to argue against men competing in 
women’s sports, and that it is “sex discrimination that has long 
been prohibited under Title IX.”

To offer precision, here’s what the ACLU actually wrote:


Faria is right, though, about translating this message as 
meaning the ACLU supports males in females’ sports; you can’t 
change your sex any more than you can your species. On the other 
side, the American Civil Liberties Union (American Confused 
Liberals Union?) might argue, sophistically, that a 10-year-old 
boy, or a MUSS adult taking testosterone suppressing drugs, 
enjoys little if any advantage over his female counterparts.

Yet at the end of the day, if it’s equality über alles as the 
ACLU claims — an idea also inherent in Title IX — on what 
logical basis could we exclude males (regardless of how they 
identify) from “women’s” sports? This is an issue. It’s also an 
absurdity conservatives never address.

Consider the story of another 10-year-old, a girl who in 2014 
was the only female on her fourth-grade basketball team. When 
the organizers of New Mexico’s Southwest Salsa Slam basketball 
tournament said she couldn’t participate because “[g]irls can 
not play on boys teams and boys can not play on girls teams,” 
there was wide media condemnation, followed by a lawsuit threat 
and capitulation.

This is different, of course, many may say. A girl playing on a 
boys’ team is “punching up” because she’s passing muster among 
superior competition, not taking advantage of a lesser variety; 
this is much as how while we don’t allow a 14-year-old to 
compete in a 12-and-under category, we do usually allow an 
exceptional 12-year-old to play in the 14s. Yet there’s a 
problem.

The argument never was, and never is, “Boys are better 
athletically. So if a girl can make the cut, more power to her.” 
No, acknowledging inherent inequality would’ve been, and would 
be, disastrous for the feminist agenda. After all, all sorts of 
social innovations, destruction of tradition, and special female-
specific scholarships and programs have been justified based on 
the “equality” supposition. If it’s thrown into question, 
perhaps then we’d have to reconsider, for example, why we 
integrated the Virginia Military Institute and Citadel (formerly 
men-only).

So the argument that was made, and always is, is that allowing 
the girl’s participation was an equality imperative that only 
neanderthals oppose. Yet there’s another problem — at least for 
those still constrained by much maligned “white male linear 
logic.”

What about the young boy who’s supplanted by a girl playing on a 
“boys’” team for which he’d otherwise qualify? He can’t try out 
for the “girls’” team, but is out in the cold.

Equality?

For that matter, if equality reigns, why have sex-specific 
athletic arenas in the first place? Just have all and sundry 
compete together, as the races do, and let the cream rise to the 
top. (Or just give everyone a participation trophy.)

What’s more, if equality reigns, why are women still exempt from 
draft registration?

So we could try to truly “live” equality. Or….

We could realize that “equality” isn’t actually a good guide for 
anything (the virtues are).

But conservatives, ever conserving liberals’ mistakes, do 
neither. Instead, they indulge a sort of cognitive dissonance, 
accepting equality dogma when it gives the feminists advantages 
(e.g., girls on boys’ teams) — and rejecting it when doing that 
gives feminists advantages (e.g., excluding MUSS boys from 
girls’ sports or women from the draft).

In truth, feminism and its enablers laid the MUSS agenda’s very 
foundation. Long before today’s fashionable “gender identity” 
craze (i.e., identify as whatever you want), what prevailed was 
“gender neutrality” theory. It held that the sexes are identical 
save the superficial physical differences and, therefore, if you 
raise boys and girls identically, they’ll turn out identical in 
inclinations and capacities. The feminists enforced this, 
socially, with an iron fist.

Yet this belief has a corollary:

Change a sex’s superficial differences — hair, clothing, 
secondary sexual characteristics — and you can be the opposite 
sex.

And this, of course, is precisely the MUSS activists’ 
contention. It’s logical, too — if you accept the feminists’ 
erstwhile convenience-born premise.

It all brings to mind Sir Walter Scott’s line, “Oh what a 
tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive.” 
Absurdity begets absurdity.

https://thenewamerican.com/indiana-trans-fight-absurd-it-was-
also-predictable/