Quick Takes – Gender Wars: Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Security Guards, and the English Language

     Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

     The focus this time: No gender for you!

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

     The so-called Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was defeated in large part due to it being pointed out that no longer considering any differences between the sexes would result in… men using women’s bathrooms.

“One of the markers of irrepressible liberalism is how it came to realize it doesn’t need to change the Constitution or the positive law to get what it wants. Remember the fuss over the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s? Is there anything feminists have wanted that they haven’t been able to get by legislation or litigation in the absence of the ERA? Hard to think of anything.

“One of the parade of imaginary horribles that opponents of the ERA threw at it back then was that it could lead to . . . integrated bathrooms! Nonsense, said the ERA’s advocates. It would never do anything that crazy. Among the persons saying this prospect was a fantasy was. . . Ruth Bader Ginsberg, writing in the Washington Post in 1975…:

“‘Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy. Individual privacy, a right of constitutional dimension, is appropriately harmonized with the equality principle.'”

     Turns out the “outlandish” claims from “fools” was spot-on.  As Lord Melbourne said: ” What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.”

     But isn’t eliminating any legal distinction between men and women supposed to help women?

     LOL, no.  A female security guard forcefully ejected a man from the women’s restroom, and then…

“The female guard was arrested for allegedly committing assault. The police report lists it as a potential hate crime, and the city’s office of LGBT affairs is watching the case”.

     The root of the confusion was the invention of the word “gender” as something other than an element of grammar or as a synonym for biological sex.

“Apparently, the substitution of the word ‘sex’ with the vague word ‘gender’ was the hobbyhorse of John Money back in the 1950s. Money was the corrupt sexologist who is most notorious for utterly ruining the life of David Reimer by talking his parents into raising David as a girl after a botched circumcision left him without a penis. Money drooled at the chance to experiment on little David because David happened to have an identical twin brother who could serve as a control for Money’s little inquest. In the 1970s, feminists took off with Money’s new lexicon, and we’ve been sloppily repeating the word ‘gender’ ever since.

“‘Gender’ doesn’t mean anything concrete when applied to human identity because ‘gender identity’ is all about a state of mind that’s not rooted in any objective reality. Sex, on the other hand, is quite definitely rooted in physical reality. Yet when ‘sex’ makes an appearance in ‘gender identity non-discrimination laws,’ it is masked as something that doesn’t exist in reality. A standard definition of ‘gender’ is that it means someone’s perception of self (as male, female, both, or neither) ‘whether or not it aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.’ Part of the premise of transgender law is to get you to believe that your sex was erroneously—and even maliciously—’assigned’ to you at birth.”

     Ten years ago, the television programs “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” and “Chicago Hope” had episodes based on this case of David Reimer (abet heavily fictionalized and dramatized), wherein the gender-bending doctor was portrayed negatively.  There is no way those episodes could be made today.


This entry was posted in Healthcare, Progressives and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.