I find myself reading a post by Eileen F. Toplansky titled: Transgenderism and the Equality Act. Frankly I would rather drink bleach than use the word “transgenderism.” It is used to avoid conveying the dignity implied with “transgender people.”
Toplansky, who I gather is an adjunct instructor at a New Jersey community college, is a frequent right wing tourist. She begins rather awkwardly.
In June 2012 George Soros’ the Center for American Progress (CAP) published an 84-page document whose introduction asserts that “[e]very day gay and transgender employees face alarmingly high rates of discrimination in the workplace. CAP actively seeks to advance the Democratic Party agenda.
First of all, Center for American Progress is not George Soros’ organization. Soros is neither an officer nor a director of CAP. Soros is sometimes a proxy for “evil Jewish influence” and often just a right wing bogeyman. I have not reviewed the tax returns of the Soros foundations lately but I seem to recall that CAP is a grant recipient.
The more important issue is that the Soros foundations are “hands off.” They do not directly influence the policy of an organization that they fund. Sure, money provides an incentive but it works the other way around. CAP will apply to the foundations for grants for specific projects.
Then Toplansky identifies the wrong organization. The correct organization is Center for American Progress Action Fund. The difference is that CAP action is a 501(c)4 which means that donations are not tax-deductible. CAP is a 501(c)3 entity. It is an important distinction.
Finally, Ms. Toplansky failed to include a closed quotation mark which belongs after the word “workplace.” A more complete quote is:
Every day gay and transgender employees face alarmingly high rates of discrimination in the workplace. For instance, 15 percent to 43 percent of gay and transgender
workers have experienced some form of discrimination on the job. According to the
Williams Institute, a think tank out of UCLA School of Law, “17 percent reported
being fired because of their sexual orientation, 13 percent reported being denied
a promotion of receiving a negative job evaluation, and 20 percent reported being
harassed verbally or in writing on the job” because they are gay or transgender.
I would not know first hand because I was closeted for most of my career. I remain neurotic from that experience. However workplace discrimination is a serious issue. Fortunately in Bostock v. Clayton County the Supreme Court has ruled that such discrimination is unlawful according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As an aside, the Trump administration through Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco argued in opposition to LGBTQ rights. January 20 cannot come soon enough. I’ll spare readers my diatribe regarding house faggots voting for Trump’s re-election.
Ms. Toplansky continues:
From 2015 on, many LGBT rights advocates moved to support the Equality Act,…
True but it has never had a chance of passage. It becomes viable if Democrats take those two seats in Georgia.
What is gender identity? To the left, it means at least 71 possibilities. Paul Kengor notes that the “newest project by the progressive left is transgenderism. Like their reinventions of marriage and family and sexuality, leftist human-nature redefiners are now remaking gender in their own image — many genders[.]”
Only 71? Gender identity is a continuum with male and female at the extreme ends. There are infinite possibilities within the spectrum. However, gender identity is not defined by the number of possible variances. Doing so is just rhetorical stupidity.
Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College which is a conservative Christian college located in Pennsylvania. Kengor’s religious views of gender identity are irrelevant. He is defending scripture. Gender-diverse people and their families are dependent upon medical science rather than dogmatic religious drivel.
Ms. Toplansky has a vivid imagination with a rhetorical flourish:
In New York City, for example, “employees are free to fluidly fluctuate among various male-female combinations and derivations. You can change your gender identity not merely once or twice or a handful of times, but you can keep changing it over and over, daily if you’d like, or even hourly — and the government will legally support you in your whims and fancies.”
Toplansky does not inform us where the quoted text comes from. It’s idiotic material. The religious right promotes the false notion that people make gratuitous decisions about their gender identity as in “today I will be female.”
There is some fluidity in gender identity but it is neither voluntary nor spontaneous. Changes occur gradually over a long period of time. Those changes are not subject to the influence of others or even the desires of the individual.
Toplansky is attempting to marginalize transgender people by implying that their gender identity is somewhat whimsical. Transgender people are those who experience considerable distress due to gender incongruence. Transitioning is the only intervention known to medical science to alleviate the severe symptoms of depression and anxiety.
And for those “New York-based businesses that do not accommodate the ‘gender’ choice, they risk six-figure fines under rules established by the city’s Commission on Human Rights. …
Since Bostock workplace discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation or gender identity is federally prohibited. It constitutes a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Fines are less important than the substantial economic liability created by a lawsuit.
Toplansky is trying to project “no fair!” Yet, there is no valid reason to discriminate. Religion does not compel bigotry.
And just what would be an anti-transgender tirade without quoting Ryan T. Anderson, Defender of the Faith™?
Ryan T. Anderson at Heritage notes that even liberals with concerns about the transgender agenda are being shunned by the radical left wing.
The leftwing agenda is bent on ensuring that ‘children as young as three years old are being started on hormone treatments to restore their identified gender.’ Thus, ‘gender identity’ refers to an individual’s inner sense of being a man or a woman or both or neither. It exists along a spectrum and can be fluid. It’s entirely arbitrary and self-disclosed. And rather incoherent, as it’s not at all clear what it means to ‘feel like’ a woman, or how I would know if I felt like one, or why my feeling like a woman (whatever that means) would make me a woman.
Gender-diverse people are treated according to the dictates of medical science; not a political agenda. Anderson is also full of crap. Puberty blockers are administered after the youth enters puberty (Tanner stage 2). A three-year-old is not post-pubescent.
If Toplansky had more intellectual curiosity than a half-pint of sour cream she would know that and would not quote Anderson’s nonsense. Anderson is also attempting to convey the idea that gender identity is invalid because it cannot be determined objectively.
Mr. Anderson is not terribly bright. Transgender people are quite aware of their gender identity. It is not something defined by “I feel like… .” In contrast, it is an issue of certainty expressed as “I am a [man|woman].” There is nothing “arbitrary” about one’s gender.
Mr. Anderson is, by trade, a philosopher. He is determined to defend the teachings of the Catholic Church. The reality is that Ryan T. Anderson is not qualified to weigh in on either gender or sexual orientation. Belief systems are based on faith. Science is a pursuit based on evidence. Anderson’s grasp of science is improperly based on faith.
Did I mention that this woman is a moron?
Science is shoved aside as “gender affirmation or gender confirmation” becomes the new mantra, despite the damage done to young people’s minds and bodies. …
It is the overwhelming consensus of medical science that gender dysphoria is best treated with transitioning. For example, the clinical practice guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics specify “the gender-affirming care model.”
“[D]amage done to young people’s minds and bodies” is hyperbolic nonsense. Most medical decisions are based on a comparison of benefits to consequences. When a youth is provided with puberty blockers that is based upon the careful consideration by a group of doctors, the youth and his or her parents.
There is a documentary titled “Transhood” that depicts parents propagandizing their children in radical gender theory.
She obviously has not viewed the HBO documentary. “[R]adical gender theory” is a religious phrase. Gender is a scientific fact. “[P]ropagandizing their children” is a malaprop.
Always ready with counterarguments, transgender advocates posit the following: “So who decides if a student is transgender? What is to prevent a boy from coming to school one day and simply declaring that he is a girl and changing in the girl’s locker room?”
No one says that. No one! Again, anti-transgender bigots make a considerable effort to depict gender identity as something spontaneous and whimsical. The bigots put words in my mouth and I resent it.
She actually follows that stupidity with a well-considered quote from an unnamed source. Either she doesn’t understand it or she seeks to delegitimize it:
Schools all over the country are supporting transgender students in these ways and this issue simply does not come up. A transgender student is very different from a young person who is claiming to be a different gender for some improper purpose.
Any student pretending to be transgender would be easily identified in the planning processes we have established. Our policy of treating transgender students consistent with their gender identity does not permit a student of the opposite sex to enter into the wrong facilities.
Some more intellectual dishonesty:
It is now proven that boys who identify as girls are destroying women’s athletic functions as they win female athletic competitions.
Toplansky simply cannot write “transgender girls.” Doing so dignifies transgender people too much. And, no, it is not “proven.” Both the NCAA and the Olympics allow athletes to compete as their gender. In both cases that was after careful study.
If nothing else, these people are predictable, … and unoriginal:
Far too many children and teenagers are undergoing permanent damaging surgery to change their sense of self. Too late, these young people deeply regret what they have done to themselves.
Minors are not candidates for surgery. Ergo, kids can not regret surgery that they haven’t received.
Another quote without attribution:
If the Equality Act becomes law, “women and girls will no longer exist as a coherent category worthy of civil rights protections. Sex-segregated spaces and women’s rights will utterly disappear.”
Bullshit. A minuscule portion of the population are transgender.
These are rarely mentioned as the radical left continues its daily destructive drumbeat to make itself the arbiter of all things. … [and] demean religion …
Medical science is the arbiter of the treatment of gender-diverse people. It’s not some left wing conspiracy and it is certainly not radical. When religion is used as a tool for prejudice and bigotry then it deserves to be demeaned. What is “radical” is demeaning evidence-based science that conflicts with faith-based dogma.
In the name of “diversity” schools now celebrate a Transgender Day of Remembrance with a panel of all-trans individuals to commemorate those lost to violence against transgender people.
And what, pray tell, is wrong with that? People like Ryan T. Anderson and Eileen F. Toplansky make such events necessary because they promote bigoted fiction to defend scripture.
Moving forward, the Equality Act will be an unmitigated disaster that will harm many people. As always, it is not about rights; it is about raw power and Soros and his ilk will be gleeful.
Tell me that is not an anti-Semitic trope. Just who would be harmed by prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations? It is like saying that the poor Klan was harmed by the Civil Rights Act. People do not need to discriminate. Discrimination is not a right that requires protection.
Not for a second does Toplansky consider the plight of a trans kid. Does she think that they volunteered to be the object of oppression and ridicule? Does she think that shaming them is a viable substitute for medical care? Perhaps.