Nicole Russell
Nicole Russell has a serious dysfunction due to the
existence of LGBTQ people

via Twitter

Nicole Russell seems to be replacing Ryan T. Anderson (who has moved on) as Heritage Foundation’s transphobia propagandist. Russell’s latest polemic is titled: Gov. Noem’s Disappointing Refusal to Support Girls and Women’s Sports.

There really is no cause for disappointment. I will get to that shortly. But, first, this what has transpired:

  1. The South Dakota legislature banned transgender females (from K to collegiate) from competing in athletics.
  2. Governor Kristi Noem did a “style and form veto” Noem requested several changes (which would not make the measure any less awful).
  3. The South Dakota House voted 67-2 not to accept the changes.

Getting back to Nicole Russell:

Here’s why I think she should have supported the original legislation.

First, the people of South Dakota support the bill. South Dakota’s Legislature has already voted overwhelmingly to pass the legislation. It sent it to Noem’s desk with full anticipation that she would sign it. Why? She said she would.

If it is true that the people support the bill then they are victims of transphobic propaganda promoted by Alliance Defending Freedom (which is behind the measure). ADF’s talking points have doubtlessly been repeated by the faithful.

Yet, there is a much more prominent issue:

Does this measure address any real problem in South Dakota?

This is not a real controversy. In all of the arguments no one has stated: “In [some area of South Dakota] these are the terrible things that happened …” That is why I say that Nicole Russell and others have no real reason to be disappointed.

Enacting a bill that will undoubtedly damage the state’s economy for no benefit would be spectacularly stupid. It is now abundantly clear that the only purpose for this bill is to demonstrate disapproval of transgender persons due to scripture.

… In this case, both chambers of the state Legislature passed this bill. Most of the time—although not all of the time—a legislator’s vote on a provision reflects what his respective constituents want.

Legislators have been sold a bill of goods by Alliance Defending Freedom which is trying to prop up their case in Connecticut. The text of the bill (based on ADF boilerplate) is incorrect in many respects.

The text begins with a secularized version of Genesis 1:27. Then it proceeds to compare men with women rather than comparing transgender females to cisgender females. ADF found one paper that speculatively analyzes the IOC policy.

There are several problems with the article and, even if we take it at face value, it is a comparison of adults. It is speculative due to the absence of trans women in Olympics competition.

Were this measure to pass it would largely affect adolescents, most of whom have been on puberty blockers since just after entering puberty. There is no peer-reviewed research comparing trans girls to cisgender girls in athletics.

One of the reasons that there is no study is the paucity of trans girls in competitive sports. The farmers, plumbers, insurance reps and RE agents who make up the legislature have not fully explored the issue.

Nicole Russell goes a step further:

There’s really no good reason not to sign the bill.

The state puts its economy at risk. The truth is that there is no good reason to sign the bill. “Protecting” people in the abstract is meaningless. Specifically who is being protected from whom in South Dakota?

Admitting to the driver of this bigoted bus:

According to Alliance Defending Freedom, which has attorneys representing an active lawsuit on this exact thing in Connecticut, that’s not true. “There is no NCAA policy that requires public schools to allow males who identify as females to compete on women’s teams. The NCAA leaves that up to individual states,” the Alliance Defending Freedom website states.

That is essentially true but highly misleading. The NCAA does not govern sports in public schools. A “public school” is clearly understood to educate K-12.

The NCAA is vigorously committed to its trans inclusion policy. It has been in effect for over 10 years and, if the policy is responsible for any controversy, I am unaware of it.

Oy veh:

That’s the main reason Noem should have reverted to her original position on the legislation. Women deserve a chance to play sports in a fair environment—but right now, women’s sports is an environment being encroached upon via the LGBTQ community.

“Encroached?” Where? When? To what extent? By whom?

There is also the typical special rights argument that is so popular among Christian fanatics:

While everyone deserves—and has—equal rights under the law, that equality does not mean some people get more rights than others. Yet that’s exactly what is happening right now.

The logical fallacies in Russell’s verbose polemic are endless. About 1,200 words and nowhere is there anything relating to schools in South Dakota. In the end this is all about dispensing shame and withholding approval. Now what part of society does that?