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: Is it really being pushed by people for the children, or to the children for the people pushing it?
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…
Some… are more equal to others.
“California’s new ‘Ebony Alert’ law creates a notification, like an AMBER Alert, to recognize missing Black women and children ages 12-25.
“Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 673 into law this week, which allows law enforcement to issue an Ebony Alert and the Department of the California Highway Patrol to update electronic highway signs. Media platforms, like radio and television, are encouraged but not required to participate in Ebony Alerts.
“‘Today, California is taking bold and needed action to locate missing Black children and Black women in California. I want to thank the Governor for signing the Ebony Alert into law,’ said Democrat Senator Steven Bradford, who authored the bill. ‘Our Black children and young women are disproportionately represented on the lists of missing persons. This is heartbreaking and painful for so many families and a public crisis for our entire state. The Ebony Alert can change this.’”
Just like the Left to try to in effect unionize child prostitutes.
“A university professor told a self-described ‘sex worker activist’ at the Socialism 2023 Conference in Chicago Sept. 2 to create a mass movement to ensure the rights of child sex workers.
“‘A mass movement has a kind of persuasive value,’ said Jules Gill-Peterson, a Johns Hopkins University history professor, according to audio captured by undercover journalist Karlyn Borysenko.
“Gill-Peterson continued, ‘If you’re part of a project trying to think about the young people’s role in the sex industry … one of the ways you might feel like you’re going to be able to lend time and energy to that effort is if it doesn’t feel like you could be hung up to dry alone for it. Right?’
“Gill-Peterson had responded to a question from Chanel, who introduced herself as a sex worker activist “working at the intersection of migrants, justice, capitalism, and sex work,” during the question-and-answer section of The Politics of Childhood panel. Gills-Peterson and Sophie Lewis, author of ‘Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation,’ served as panelists of this session.”
At least some sanity is to be had in the Sixth Circuit of Appeals
“In Tennessee, as in every state, each time a baby is born, a birth certificate is created that identifies its biological sex. But while certain changes—e.g., a new name—are allowed, the state “treats the sex listed on the birth certificate as a historical fact unchangeable by an individual’s transition to a different gender identity.”
“In other words, merely saying that you identify as the opposite sex doesn’t require the State to make it so on your birth certificate.
“A group of transgender plaintiffs whose sex listed on their birth certificate conflicted with their gender identity challenged the policy. They said it “stigmatized” them and increased the risk that they would suffer “discrimination, distress, harassment or violence.” The district court rejected their claims and they appealed to the Sixth Circuit, arguing that Tennessee’s policy violated their constitutional rights.
“To be clear, the plaintiffs weren’t challenging the state’s initial designation of sex on each birth certificate. They were challenging the State’s amendment policy refusing to allow them to change that designation based on their say-so.
“And in that regard, the court said, Tennessee’s birth certificate policy treats applicants alike. Just because Tennessee classifies newborns as male or female on their birth certificates doesn’t mean the state is discriminating against transgender people based on sex.”
TTFN.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 08.01.24 : The Other McCain