Trans Activists Stage Another Insurrection

To say it’s been an extremely rough 12 months for trans activists in 
the state of Iowa would be an understatement.

Last March, the governor of Iowa signed legislation banning doctors 
from giving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors. The law 
also outlawed the genital mutilation of children. There was nothing 
particularly unusual about this bill. It resembled legislation that had 
already been passed in Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, South Dakota, 
Arizona, Arkansas, Alabama, and several other states. But trans 
activists in Iowa thought of a somewhat unique way to protest the ban.

For reasons that still aren’t entirely clear, they held an impromptu 
freak show in a park, in which they demanded to be taken seriously. And 
naturally, they received sympathetic coverage from local news stations. 
Here’s what it looked like:

https://youtu.be/NQgnEjXCnhI

This demonstration was apparently intended to convey the credibility 
and legitimacy of these trans activists. They want you to know that 
they’re definitely not self-obsessed narcissists. And to prove it, 
they’ll dress up in Halloween costumes and prance around in public. And 
of course, they’ll repeat the argument that so-called “trans kids” are 
just trying to live their lives by taking hormones and puberty 
blockers, as if children can consent to permanent sterilization and 
early-onset bone disease. It’s laughable and evil at the same time, and 
needless to say, it convinced no one. Iowa’s law banning child 
castration was signed by the governor shortly afterwards.

So this year, Iowa’s trans community was back with a new strategy. This 
time, in response to new bills making their way through the Iowa 
legislature, trans activists decided to commit what can only be 
described as an act of flagrant insurrection against the United States 
of America. The display was not contained to the park this time, 
although as you’ll see, they did that too. This is footage from the 
past week in Iowa’s capitol. Watch:

https://youtu.be/3Y2k70B75s4

Needless to say, everyone involved should be arrested as 
insurrectionists and sent to prison for 15 years. That’s the precedent 
that has been set, and it should be applied equally.

As you heard from the guy with the colored hair, “We shut it down 
today, but they’re going to try to bring this back when we’re not 
looking.” That’s a reference to a bill that would have classified 
gender dysphoria as a disability. The Iowa House rejected that 
legislation after the mob showed up and occupied the statehouse, which 
is apparently acceptable when trans activists do it. But as the walking 
anime character predicted, there would indeed be more legislation 
coming that these activists wouldn’t like. And in response, they once 
again occupied the capitol.

This latest bill that we’re told will inevitably lead to the genocide 
of trans activists is actually pretty straightforward. For one thing, 
it would provide a clear definition for “man” and “woman.” 
Specifically, the bill would define a “female” as “a person whose 
biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova.” And it 
would define “male” as someone “whose biological reproductive system is 
developed to fertilize the ova of a female.” 

One thing you’ll notice about those definitions is that they aren’t 
circular. They also aren’t subjective — which is to say, they’re actual 
definitions, unlike anything trans activists are capable of producing. 
Leftists who use the word “nuance” all the time but wouldn’t know 
nuance if it smacked them over the head have tried to quibble with the 
definitions by pointing out, as they always do, that some small number 
of males and small number of females have dysfunctional reproductive 
systems. This obviously doesn’t undermine the definition of the terms, 
and in any event, the definition in the law says that the male’s 
“reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female,” 
and that the female’s reproductive system is developed to produce the 
ova.” That doesn’t mean this system plays out perfectly in every case, 
with every person. It just means that the systems develop to that end. 
So the definition works very well.

But the bill does run into some major problems as it goes along. 
They’re not the problems that trans activists are complaining about, 
though. So first I’ll present their argument, which as usual, isn’t 
really an argument at all. 

According to the opponents of this bill, the legislation would: 

	… require special gender markers for transgender people on 
	birth certificates, measures that were compared to ‘pink 
	triangles’ once used to identify LGBTQ+ people by Nazis in 
	the 1940s.

That’s according to a trans activist writing in The Guardian. 
Apparently these special gender markers “were compared” to something 
the Nazis did, and this comparison was made by some unnamed entity or 
individual. And we’re supposed to be very alarmed by this, even though 
it’s now obvious to everyone that transgender activists are incapable 
of making reasoned, calm points about anything. They have to compare 
everything they don’t like to Hitler, at every possible opportunity. So 
now they’re implying that people identifying as transgender are going 
to be hunted down in Iowa based on their birth certificates or other 
documentation.

This article was written by trans activist Erin Reed. So, by his logic, 
if I compare Erin Reed to serial killer John Wayne Gacy — whether the 
comparison makes sense or not — then the rest of you, when referring to 
Erin Reed, can say, “Erin Reed, who has been compared to serial killer 
John Wayne Gacy.” That’s the way it works now. I don’t make the rules, 
but I will have fun exploiting them. 

If you read the actual text of the bill, here’s what you’ll find. The 
bill defines the word “sex” to mean, “a person’s biological sex, either 
male or female, at birth.” Right away, you’ll notice that’s a circular 
definition, which isn’t a great sign. Things get worse as the bill goes 
on to state:

	The state registrar shall establish a new certificate of birth 
	for a person born in the state, when the state registrar 
	receives … a notarized affidavit by a licensed physician and 
	surgeon … stating that by reason of surgery or other treatment, 
	the sex designation of the person has been changed.

At that point, the new birth certificate will include:

	... a designation of the sex of the person, as male or female, 
	both at the time of birth and at the time the new certificate 
	of birth is established.

This is incoherent. It’s actually nonsense. Someone’s “sex” cannot be 
changed. It is not “assigned” at birth. A notarized affidavit from a 
physician is incapable of changing someone’s sex or “sex designation,” 
no matter how many body parts that physician cuts off. What Iowa should 
be doing is requiring that people’s birth certificates accurately state 
their sex. That’s it.

Once you buy into the lie that sex can be changed, then you’ve given 
trans activists 95% of what they want. They may be too hysterical to 
realize it, but that’s what you’re doing. The only solution is to 
embrace reality and ban people from changing their “sex” or their 
“gender” entirely, because these are things that cannot be changed.

This is what Florida did a couple of weeks ago.

The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles announced 
that residents can no longer change their gender from “male” to 
“female,” whether they have a letter from a medical provider or not. 
This is obviously the right approach. And predictably, it led trans 
activists to melt down in their typical melodramatic fashion. As we saw 
yesterday, they staged this “die-in” at the DMV, because of course, if 
you can’t change your gender on your driver’s license, then you’re as 
good as dead. Watch:

https://youtu.be/ejVand-zV8g

This is also an illegal demonstration, by the way. They’re blocking 
access to the Florida DMV. Now you might say that they’re mostly silent 
and peaceful, but that didn’t stop the DOJ from sending SWAT teams to 
the homes of pro-life activists when they were silent and peaceful 
outside of abortion clinics. Those activists are now facing a decade in 
prison. The only punishment these trans activists received, by 
contrast, is mockery on the internet because of how completely detached 
they are from reality. Never in history has a group reacted so 
hysterically to laws this benign and common sense. And never have they 
been more coddled.

This approach — coddling these people — creates a lot more problems 
than it solves. The Iowa bill is the perfect example of that. It 
doesn’t just concede that sex can be changed. It also gets bogged down 
in confusing and unnecessary explanations, instead of laying down 
simple and straightforward rules to deal with this nonsense. For 
example, the bill states that “the term ‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or 
‘identical.'” But the bill doesn’t actually define what “equal” means, 
if not “same” or “identical.”

The bill also states, “separate accommodations are not inherently 
unequal.” That’s true, depending on the context, but no one is going to 
read that line and not think of “Plessy v. Ferguson” and racial 
segregation. All you need to do is say men can’t use women’s bathrooms 
and locker rooms, and women can’t use men’s bathrooms and locker rooms. 
It’s not that complicated. But the bill leaves itself open to attack 
here, apparently in an effort to explain things to trans activists that 
don’t need to be explained.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP
Here’s the thing: the claims made by trans activists are so 
fundamentally false and ridiculous that any attempt to meet them on 
their turf, any ground given to them, even just an inch, will end up 
with you getting lost in a web of incoherence. All you can do is lay 
things out very simply, according to the basic biological truth, and 
leave it at that.

These people cannot be defeated with half-measures. Any form of 
compromise only emboldens them further. They see weakness and they 
exploit it. That’s why the Iowa bill doesn’t go far enough. Trans 
activists who want to deny reality should not receive any kind of 
endorsement of the state. They are not entitled to some third category 
of gender, nor should we create “separate but equal” systems on their 
behalf — nor is there any political reason to afford them any of these 
concessions.

Trans activists, as a group, have never been weaker, more exposed and 
less organized. After years of completely dominating the conversation 
by shrieking as loudly as they can, now they’re on the defensive. If we 
want to end this conversation forever — a conversation we never should 
have had — then the solution is not to humor them anymore. This 
movement deserves nothing but our scorn and contempt and absolute, 
uncompromising rejection.

When that’s all they get from us, then no, “trans people” won’t die. 
But their ideology will.

--
Let's go Brandon!