Put More Boys on Girls’ Teams!

Posted on by
Reply

Trans runner helps Camas girls win!

Well, yes, if you take a person who was a boy in September and change him to a girl in October, then put him on the girls’ cross country team, he, now she, just might help the girls win a meet. But who really wins in this case? Not the girls, in my humble opinion. Perhaps the girls should stop running and create a team of only trans girls? I know. Most schools don’t have enough trans athletes to pull this off. But something to think about.

This was a hot topic for about a day in September when Sophie Cunningham, who plays for the WNBA Indiana Fever stated her support for keeping trans athletes out of girls’ sports. College, professional, and Olympic sports already limit women’s teams to biological females, but this is still a contentious issue in high schools. Cunningham answered reporters questions by admirably saying she is not anti-trans, but believes that biological males have advantages in sports. For me, this is a no-brainer, but I continue to be surprised when friends hold to the view that trans athletes should not be discriminated against.

After the ruckus over Cunningham’s statements in support of restricting girls’ sports to biological girls, two retiring NBA players stated that they planned to try out for the WNBA draft next spring. OK, they were being facetious, but if we can’t agree on what a woman is, why wouldn’t guys who didn’t make the cut for the NBA try out for the WNBA. Or why wouldn’t a boy who placed 72nd in a boys’ cross country meet, simply say he’s a girl and try to get on the girls’ team where he might come in 2nd instead of 72nd a month earlier?

Part of the problem, aside from not being able to define woman, or girl, is that some states (e.g. my state of Washington) have “Self-ID” laws. Self-ID means that if you say you are a man, then you’re a man. If you say you are a woman, you are a woman, essentially erasing the definition of “woman.” Women have fought too long and too hard for our rights to concede to this without a fight, again, in my humble opinion.

Oddly enough, it’s just as hard to define trans as it is to define woman in a Self-ID state. Let’s take the student who was a boy in September and a girl in October for example. Few details are available about this student, so I’m speculating here. But obviously “she” can’t be very far along in the process of transitioning to female. Had he/she been on puberty blockers? For how long? Had he begun taking estrogen? If so, when? If he was taking estrogen, why would he have been on the boys’ team in September? Surely he hadn’t had bottom surgery yet as that’s quite a process. Honestly, I just genuinely wonder how serious this kid is about being trans. Perhaps he/she just wants to be on the podium to get a ribbon.

With adults, its also hard to nail down who is trans and who isn’t because gender ideology is very inclusive about who’s trans, who’s queer, who’s 2Spirit, how many genders there are, whether or not people with differences of sexual development, aka intersex people are trans (most are emphatically not trans and resent being included in the debate)? People claim trans identity if they have just started thinking about gender. In fact, that’s part of the process for some. People are often encouraged to “try out” a new gender identity before medicalizing. Schools encourage children to “socially transition” before starting hormones or undergoing surgeries. Girls use breast binders at school (often provided by teachers or counselors) but say nothing to their parents who might not approve. School employees are sworn to secrecy if students are reluctant to tell their parents that they want to transition – thinking that their parents might want to dissuade them. (Most parents would want to stall for time, I’m sure.) The state can actually remove kids from their home in certain situations if parents do not support transition. The whole thing is crazy, again, in my humble opinion.

If you’re feeling sorry for trans people because I’m not on board with all of their ideology, don’t. They have plenty of power to enforce cancelations. (Were you thinking WOKE was dead?) Here’s a current example that happened a block from my home: A restaurant was intimidated into canceling a reservation by a Republican group that meets there regularly because Brian Heywood was coming to their meeting. Brian Heywood, if you’re not up on things, is behind three initiatives on my ballot this fall, two of which relate to trans issues. It seems that trans activists have plenty of power in my town (Olympia). Do you doubt me? Please read, “Tolerance for Me, But Not for Three” in which Alesha Perkins provides extensively details the power of trans activists in Olympia.

And if that’s not enough to convince you that intolerance is serious business in Olympia, there’s my tiny story. I was blocked from using Reddit r/Olympia after this post:

Trans runner helps Camas girls win!

Well, yes, if you take a person who was a boy in September and change him to a girl in October, then put him on the girls’ cross country team, he, now she, just might help the girls win a meet. But who really wins in this case? Not the girls, in my humble opinion. Perhaps the girls should stop running and create a team of only trans girls? I know. Most schools don’t have enough trans athletes to pull this off. But something to think about.

This was a hot topic for about a day in September when Sophie Cunningham, who plays for the Indiana Fever stated her support for keeping trans athletes out of girls’ sports. College, professional, and Olympic sports already limit women’s teams to biological females, but this is still a contentious issue in high schools. Cunningham answered reporters questions by admirably saying she is not anti-trans, but believes that biological males have advantages in sports. For me, this is a no-brainer, but I continue to be surprised when friends hold to the view that trans athletes should not be discriminated against.

After the ruckus over Cunningham’s statements in support of restricting girls’ sports to biological girls’, two retiring NBA players stated that they planned to try out for the WNBA draft next spring. OK, they were being facetious, but if we can’t agree on what a woman is, why wouldn’t guys who didn’t make the cut for the NBA try out for the WNBA. Or why wouldn’t a boy who placed 72nd in a boys’ cross country meet, simply say he’s a girl and try to get on the girls’ team where he might come in 2nd instead of 72nd a month earlier?

Part of the problem, aside from not being able to define woman, or girl, is that some states (e.g. my state of Washington) have “Self-ID” laws. Self-ID means that if you say you are a man, then you’re a man. If you say you are a woman, you are a woman, essentially erasing the definition of “woman.” Women have fought too long and too hard for our rights to concede to this without a fight, again, in my humble opinion.

Oddly enough, it’s just as hard to define trans as it is to define woman in a Self-ID state. Let’s take the student who was a boy in September and a girl in October for example. Few details are available about this student, so I’m speculating here. But obviously “she” can’t be very far along in the process of transitioning to female. Had he/she been on puberty blockers? For how long? Had he begun taking estrogen? If so, when? If he was taking estrogen, why would he have been on the boys’ team in September? Surely he hadn’t had bottom surgery yet as that’s quite a process. Honestly, I just genuinely wonder how serious this kid is about being trans. Perhaps he/she just wants to be on the podium to get a ribbon.

With adults, its also hard to nail down who is trans and who isn’t because gender ideology is very inclusive about who’s trans, who’s queer, who’s 2Spirit, how many genders there are, whether or not people with differences of sexual development, aka intersex people and trans (most are emphatically not trans and resent being included in the debate)? People claim trans identity if they have just started thinking about gender. In fact, that’s part of the process for some. People are often encouraged to “try out” a new gender identity before medicalizing. Schools encourage children to “socially transition” before starting hormones or undergoing surgeries. Girls use breast binders at school (often provided by teachers or counselors) but say nothing to their parents who might not approve. School employees are sworn to secrecy if students are reluctant to tell their parents that they want to transition – thinking that their parents might want to dissuade them. The state can remove kids from their home if parents do not support transition. The whole think is crazy, again, in my humble opinion.

If you’re feeling sorry for trans people because I’m not on board with all of their ideology, don’t. They have plenty of power to enforce cancelations. (Were you thinking WOKE was dead?) Here’s a current example that happened a block from my home: A restaurant was intimidated into canceling a reservation by a Republican group that meets there regularly because Brian Heywood was coming to their meeting. Brian Heywood, if you’re not up on things, is behind three initiatives on my ballot this fall, two of which relate to trans issues. It seems that trans activists have plenty of power in my town (Olympia). Do you doubt me? Please read, “Tolerance for Me, But Not for Three” in which Alesha Perkins details the power of trans activists in Olympia.

And if that’s not enough to convince you that intolerance is serious business in Olympia, there’s my tiny story. I was blocked from using Reddit r/Olympia after this post:

Screenshot

Folks, trans ideology is entrenched. Trans activists have way more power than they deserve. Most people are blissfully unaware of what’s going on in the debate over trans issues and want to stay that way. I don’t blame them because there are so many other issues to care about. But, please, don’t assume you have to support trans ideology because it would be unkind not to. There’s a term for that : Suicidal Empathy.

A World Without Israel?

Posted on by
Reply

The world has turned against Israel. This turn of events has led me to wonder what the world would be like without the state of Israel. I assume that many people standing on street corners with signs reading “Free Palestine” would like Israel to be wiped off the map. Yet I doubt that the majority of my neighbors envision that solution to the never ending debate over the Jewish state. In fact, I doubt that the majority of my neighbors think much of anything about Israel beyond their desire to be free of this particular conundrum. 

Still, I’d like to ponder the possibility that through some unknown sequence of events playing out over the next few years, Israel ceases to exist. Though this might not be the goal of many whose attitudes toward Israel have hardened recently, unintended consequences do occur. There are many ways this could happen. Jews could simply tire of never-ending conflict and take their chances elsewhere; Iran could send a nuclear bomb to Tel Aviv which would destroy the very small state; civil strife within Israel could devolve into civil war leading to mass exodus; Arab neighbors could succeed in defeating Israel’s armed forces. 

Ten million Israeli citizens live in a challenging neighborhood. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and the West Bank and Gaza hold a total of 166 million mostly Muslim neighbors who are not necessarily friendly despite peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt. These 166 million neighbors are just a fraction of the 2 billion Muslims worldwide. Muslims are not all jihadis seeking the end of Israel, but neither are they defenders of the lone Jewish state. Given these numbers, Western support for Israel could be vital to its continued existence. Hence my unease with the rising antagonism towards Israel, but also my curiosity about the necessity of a Jewish state. 

Let’s consider the Jewish diaspora. Many of the world’s 15 million Jews do not live in Israel. Recent data shows 7+ million, or 45% of Jews worldwide do live in Israel, 6+ million, or 40% live in the US, while the rest are dispersed around the western world in communities ranging from 400,000 down to as few as 10,000. If over 50% of Jews currently live outside of Israel, do Jews really need the Jewish state? 

If you have a globalist attitude, the answer might be simply that no state should explicitly exclude anyone outside their group and only give citizenship to their own people. If that’s your position, you win! There are currently no countries that meet that definition of an ethno state. There are three states that give preference to returning members of their diaspora for immigration and citizenship: Israel, Armenia, and Hungary, but all afford citizenship to people not of their ethnic or religious identity.

Back to the Jews. Do they really need their own state, or do they just want it very, very badly? I’ll confess that for many years, I thought that creating the state of Israel was simply a mistake. Jews were doing fine elsewhere; we’d learned our lesson from the Holocaust. I don’t think that any more, mostly because I’ve done a lot of reading. As millions of Europe’s WW II refugees were slowly being sent to new homes in the aftermath of the war, the Jews who’d survived the various concentration camps remained in refugee camps. No one wanted them. Let me repeat that: No one wanted the Jews. 

During the war, Arabs had pressured Germany to not send Jews to Palestine leading some to blame Arabs for the final solution. I’m content to let Hitler shoulder the blame for the final solution, but the fact is that the Arabs pressured Germany during the war and Britain both before and after the war to not send Jews to Palestine. So Jewish emigration was limited before the war, and Jews were kept in refugee camps after the war until the newly created state of Israel could begin accepting them. When Israel’s enemies failed to extinguish the new state, they and other Muslim countries began expelling Jewish residents with ancient ties to their regions. Hundreds of thousands made Israel their new home.

I would love to think that Jews would be safe anywhere in the world, that a safe haven for Jews is unnecessary. But Jew hatred has a long, long history, and the numbers are not comforting. 15 million Jews in a world of 8 billion people with anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism on the rise? Less than 0.2% of the world’s population in a sea of hostility? 

Jews, along with other minorities, are considered dhimmi in Muslim majority countries. Essentially, they are second class citizens. Perhaps the Jihadis who want to erase Israel from the map should consider the option of welcoming Jews as equals in their various existing countries. Muslim politicians in the US talk about a democratic Palestine in which all people are equal, but no one has created such a state anywhere Muslims are the majority. I don’t see how anything less than a 180º turnaround in their attitudes obviates the need for a Jewish state. 

Sadly, the history of Jew hatred is such that I don’t see it retreating anytime soon. It’s just too easy to blame a scapegoat rather than work through challenging issues, and scapegoating Jews has such an extensive history that I only see it continuing for the foreseeable future. I’m more pessimistic than most Jews who speak publicly about this. Am I wrong, or are they naive? Unless the Jews of Israel tear themselves apart, something I hope not to see, my current sense is that the Jewish state is essential far into the future. I would love to see attitudes of people in my community change. I would love to see Muslim attitudes change. I’d love to see people acknowledge the ways Israel’s enemies have stood in the way of a two state solution, the only solution that could help heal the region. 

I’m now old enough to know that this enduring conflict is unlikely to be resolved in my lifetime. I realize that this and other conflicts that worry me will continue long after I’m around. Only recently do I think about this. Is it comforting to think that I can offload this worry onto the shoulders of younger souls? Hmmm. 

Here’s How to Vote for Judges!

Posted on by
Reply

One of the most perplexing things on the ballot each year is elections for judges. Candidates cannot state their positions on issues that might come before the court, e.g. parental rights, abortion, gun control, and many other things. Their races are non-partisan. So how on earth are we supposed to choose between them? Good looks? Law schools? Pictures of their families? 

In years past, I’ve asked a friend whose brother is a lawyer for advice. But that’s just his opinion based on whatever contacts and experience he has. If he doesn’t know anything, he won’t suggest anything. So sometimes I’m still left wondering what to do. This year, I’ve been clicking around to see what resources are available, and I’ve found one that might help: Ballotopedia 

Ballotopedia is not my favorite website. It’s cluttered with ads and there are two main, and confusing, side menus. But stick with it and you’ll find that there is a lot of useful information. If you’re wondering if it’s worth your time, let me remind you that five of our state’s nine Supreme Court Justice positions are up for election this year. If ever there was a year to weigh in on the court, this is it. Four positions will be on the primary ballot which you should already have. One goes straight to the general election because only two people are in that race.

Here’s an example of a race where spending time on Ballotopedia can help you sort out the candidates. Four candidates will be on the ballot for Position 5 on the Supreme Court. All four have been to law school, but that’s about all they have in common.  Click on each name and scroll under their picture to find a link to their campaign website. One, Theo Angelis, was appointed this year by our governor when a justice resigned. Check his endorsements for this “non-partisan” position. You won’t find a lot of endorsements except for Angelis, but don’t let that stop you. One stands out to me, namely Dave Larson. Stick with his website for a bit and you’ll see that he’s able to take a principled, well-reasoned stand that might make him unpopular in certain deep blue circles. That appeals to me, especially this year. 

Twenty years ago, the endorsements that pile up for certain candidates might have persuaded me to support them. But this year, after watching the changes in organizations such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, teacher’s unions and other labor organizations, those endorsements are as likely as not to send me to a different candidate. With five seats up for election on a nine member state Supreme Court, this would be the year to spend some time studying the candidates for each position. Ballotopedia is a good place the start.

Note: Because the Ballotopedia website is so quirky, I’m not guaranteeing this link, but please persist if it doesn’t go directly to the site. And do click around for other information while you’re there.

Washington Supreme Court Races

Didn’t We Already Pass That?

Posted on by
Reply

How’s your sense of deja vu? Do you remember voting for an initiative that had something to do with the rights of parents of public school students? Didn’t Washington voters already establish that schools needed to give parents access to student records and teaching materials, and give parents the right to opt their children out of certain lessons? Yes, we did. We passed I-2081, yet here we are being asked to vote on this again.

I usually do background research to help me decide how to vote on initiatives. I try to read the text of the initiative, I read what’s in voter pamphlets, I look at who’s speaking out on which side, I talk to friends to see if they have opinions. But sometimes, an issue is just too simple to justify all of that work, and that seems to be the case this year.

Conservative groups that I often disagree with are behind some initiatives that I support this year. I’m on board with IL26-001 which “would re-enact RCW 28A.605.005 as it was originally enacted in Initiative to the Legislature 2081.” It’s simple: A majority of citizens supported this initiative, yet the legislature took away the provisions that enhanced the rights of parents when dealing with school districts. Something is not obvious from the language of the initiative or the bill that gutted it. But a major concern of parents is that schools can hide from parents information about their child’s desire to change gender, a desire that can only be affirmed by Washington public school employees. 

Schools are asserting that only they have the best interest of the child at heart. Parents who don’t fully endorse gender ideology are, by virtue of that fact, abusive. No! That’s absurd. Laws already protect children from abusive parents. I know. I once sent a student to the office when he showed me the belt marks on his back after I’d called his home about missing assignments. “See what you did!” he exclaimed. He could not go home that day until after police had met with his parents. He later told me he’d never been hit after that. Parents who do not support the trans-activist agenda can absolutely have the best interests of the children at heart. If actual abuse is suspected, procedures are already in place to deal with it.

The other initiative I’m supporting is IL26-638, “Protecting Fairness in Girls’ Sports.” This matter has recently been considered by the US Supreme Court which ruled that states can legally maintain separate teams for males and females based on biology, not gender identity. The ruling did not require states to do this, and Washington has bought into the “gender identity” dogmatism for many years, i.e. the notion that claims* of a gender identity entitle a person to the rights guaranteed to a person of the opposite sex. The result has been that biological males who claim to be female are competing in women’s sports in Washington and many other states. 

The debate about keeping men out of women’s sports has gotten ugly. Somehow, people who support this are said to “deny the existence of trans people.” I’ve been accused of this, and I don’t even know what that would mean. People taking cross sex hormones or availing themselves of surgeries to alter their bodies exist. I don’t deny that. Yet, in my mind, humans are dimorphic, male and female, and separate sports teams for males and females makes sense to me. A handful of children without obvious male advantages might be prohibited from competing against girls, but better that than unimpeded entrance of male to female trans people into female sports. 

Back to my claim of simplicity regarding these ballot measures. Remember when Ketanji Brown Jackson, during hearings about her nomination to the Supreme Court, declined to answer, “What is a Woman?” She waffled and said she wasn’t a biology major, so she couldn’t define it. How about “Adult Human Female?” That works for me. No one is confused about men, just women, because men have “transed” themselves into women’s spaces, women’s prisons, and women’s sports. Women are not clamoring to get into mens’ prisons or mens’ sports, for obvious reasons. 

I wish Washington citizens didn’t have to put these issues before the voters, but our legislature has pushed far ahead of the public on the trans issue, so here we are. I’m supporting I26-001 and I26-638.

re: “claims of gender identity,” yes, Washington is a Self-ID state. Any person can simply claim to be the opposite sex and the state must accept it as true. No medical efforts to transition can be required.

Scott Galloway is an Anchor Baby!

Posted on by
Reply

I’m a bit disappointed in the articles I’ve read about the Supreme Court’s decision upholding birthright citizenship. People have focused on the patchwork of opinions supporting or dissenting in whole or in part from Justice Roberts’ majority decision. What I’m not seeing is a rationale for why birthright citizenship is important.

Many countries don’t have birthright citizenship, though it’s not true that we alone have this guarantee. Countries that don’t have it, may have a provision that anyone born in that country can become a citizen when they turn 18 simply by applying. Other countries have provisions that a child with one parent who’s a citizen becomes a citizen at birth. The variations are many. But people who oppose birthright citizenship often assume that every newborn is a citizen somewhere; that, sadly, is not the case. 

Most newborns are citizens somewhere because most of their parents are citizens somewhere. But think back to the time of our founding, and citizenship was not a thing in much of the world. I’ve thought a lot about this, and that was a thought that I had to grapple with! People were born and grew up in a place, often within a tribe or community. The community protected its own (or sent them packing into the unknown), but people often didn’t grow up with a sense of their individual rights. The US, in contrast, was founded on the sense that individuals had rights, soon spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Over time, we have extended these rights to more and more of our population, not just men who owned land. Now we (Americans) all have rights, and if you are born here, you, too, have those rights. 

Because other countries have different rules about who is a citizen, some babies are born without rights. Without rights? But of course they have “natural rights” or “human rights” or surely have some rights, do they not? Actually, to assert your rights necessitates that there is a government to appeal to, but governments only protect the rights of their citizens. What about human rights? Doesn’t the United Nations assert that everyone has human rights? It does. But the United Nations is not a government. (It’s a bit of a mess, actually.) All the UN can do is urge its various member states to adopt those human rights, but most tinker with the language of the Declaration of Human Rights. 

If the US were to restrict citizenship to certain babies and not others, some will be born into the condition of being alien everywhere in the world. It will not happen to most babies, but it will happen. This is terrible status to attach to a newborn, and it is why I care so much about preserving birthright citizenship. 

Following upon the Court’s decision, some have immediately started clamoring for new laws or a constitutional amendment to “fix” the problem. For starters, I don’t agree that it’s a problem. I fear the fixes being proposed will only create more problems. Shocking arguments have emerged to bolster the case for overturning birthright citizenship, some with basic racism at their roots. The US must stay white majority or Christian majority, or some other majority. We cannot allow the “nature” of our country to evolve over time. (Doesn’t everything evolve over time?)

Anchor babies are another concern. I’ve no idea how many “anchor babies” are born in the US each year meaning a baby whose mother came here just to give birth so her baby would have US citizenship. I’m not sure how you’d count anchor babies. I’ve heard that Chinese women are especially clever at timing their travel to the US just in time to give birth. Could be true? Is it a problem? Perhaps not, given how capable many Chinese people become. Perhaps we should welcome them? 

In any event, I recently learned that Scott Galloway is an anchor baby! Scott, or ProfG, is a person with opinions and a lot of money. Look him up if you’re curious. in any event, as I was saying, his mother came to the US from Canada on a visitor visa timed around his due date, and he obtained citizenship at birth. We can argue about whether or not we need a rich person with his opinions in the US, but here he is, he’s thriving, people listen to him, people pay to hear his opinions, so he seems to be an American success story. 

To conclude, I don’t worry much about anchor babies. I do worry about any person being born without rights, without the protection of a country that counts you as a citizen. Whenever this topic comes up, I want you to remind people that without birthright citizenship, the US will create a class of people without rights. We just cannot do that. In my humble opinion.

Supreme Court Decision on Birthright Citizenship