Topic: Gender Identity
“The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”
I’m curious how words merely existing are depriving Americans of their First Amendment Rights, and how deleting those words from government regulations/legislation is going to restore those rights. If anything, removing those words arbitrarily is a violation of 1A – it’s literally censorship by the government. Again, lots of cognitive dissonance here, and he’s unclear on what removing these words actually hopes to accomplish, other than effectively legalizing discrimination against anyone who fits into any of those phrases. Seriously? The phrase “reproductive health” is woke? Insanity.
Full contextual analysis of foreword here.
The “…noxious tenets of critical race theory and gender ideology should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country […] it’s poisoning our children.”
Critical race theory isn’t taught in public elementary schools, it’s taught in law school. Moreover, it’s not exactly new, or particularly “scary”, unless you’re a seething racist. CRT emerged in the 1970’s and is literally just the idea that if you’re a person of color, the justice system in the United States has systemic racism built in, and that POC get treated differently by the police, courts, et al. You don’t have to look around very hard to know that this is 100% true. Police brutality, for example, far disproportionately affects people of color. [Source]
Full contextual analysis of the foreword here.
“Democrat Administrations have nearly erased what females are and what femininity is through “gender” policies and practices.”
I don’t know of any women who have been “erased”, nor do I know many women whose femininity is so fragile, that the inclusion of trans women in the idea of what womanhood can encompass, worries or threatens them in the least. I don’t think an overwhelming majority of women are interested in gatekeeping what it means to be a woman (although men have been historically obsessed with what it means to “be a man”, so I understand why Primorac might think this.) In fact, the idea that someone else merely existing might “erase” you or threaten your place in the world is no more than you victimizing yourself. Do you know what actually erases women? Policies that take away their rights and their voices, and put their lives in danger.
As a side note, referring to women as “females”, as Primorac does here, reduces them to their reproductive abilities. This language is not an accident. That’s all that Republicans think women are good for, as evidenced by their draconian abortion policies (which actually result in more abortions; see above.) They don’t see women as people, or they’d trust them make their own choices. See: Repulicans Claim to Love Both Mothers and Children. Their Policies Prove They Love Neither.
In any case, systematically reducing women to their reproductive capabilities makes it very easy for them to discriminate against trans women – if you can’t have babies, you are not part of the club. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance routinely dismisses childless women as bad and/or useless, and even once suggested that people with children should have more voting power.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“In addition, the next conservative Administration should rescind President Biden’s 2022 Gender Policy and refocus it on Women, Children, and Families and revise the agency’s regulation on “Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle.” It should remove all references, examples, definitions, photos, and language on USAID websites, in agency publications and policies, and in all agency contracts and grants that include the following terms: “gender,” “gender equality,” “gender equity,” “gender diverse individuals,” “gender aware,” “gender sensitive,” etc. It should also remove references to “abortion,” “reproductive health,” and “sexual and reproductive rights” and controversial sexual education materials.”
Apparently, he’s taking a page from Russ Vought’s book where he appears to believe that if you don’t say the words that talk about a thing, then that thing ceases to exist. I touch on that in Section 1.2, but suffice it to say, this is not a policy position grounded in reality. Moreover, the term “reproductive health” is radical to him? That’s not the position of a normal person. Henceforth, I will be referring to this phenomenon as the “Bruno Strategy,” because?
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.”
Enforcement of civil rights which completely disregards race and gender discrimination not only does not reflect a “proper understanding of the law”, it’s blatantly discriminatory. She’s arguing here that racial discrimination and gender discrimination are A-okay, because it’s not your right to not be discriminated against because of your race or gender. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 would like a word, Ms. Burke. One wonders what she believes a “proper understanding of the law” is, in this case.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“At the same time, there is no scientific or legal basis for redefining “sex” to “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX.”
False. There is absolutely a scientific basis for it including gender identity. See above. As for it not including sexual orientation, this is an argument she’s making for legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ+ students as well. (And there IS a legal basis for it – it’s called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an examination of which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that the word “sex” in Title VII includes sexual orientation and gender identity.) Sounds like Burke is just mad about the ruling. In any case, the ruling was significant because it extended protections under federal law to LGBTQ+ individuals, ensuring that they cannot be fired, denied a job, or otherwise discriminated against at work simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Burke is arguing for going back to discriminatory practices here.
She even mentions Bostock in the next sentence, saying that redefining “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity in Title IX regulations “misrepresents Bostock.” It doesn’t. In fact, it’s completely aligned with the spirit of the ruling; she’s just a bigot. (FYI, Bostock was more specifically about discrimination in employment, not in schools, but the point stands.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“On its first day in office, the next Administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump Administration’s Title IX regulation, with the additional insistence that “sex” is properly understood as a fixed biological fact. Official notice-and-comment should be posted immediately.”
“Day one, we’re going to start legalizing discrimination!” No, sex is not a “fixed biological fact.” See above. Just for fun, here’s a link about the Guevedoces, which, roughly translated, means “penis at twelve.” The Guevedoces are a small community in the Dominican Republic where some males are born looking like girls and subsequently grow penises at puberty, when their testicles also descend. Most were brought up as girls until this happened to them. [Source]28 The world is a vast and complicated place, and very little about it is a “fixed biological fact.”
The next few pages are simply blatant racism, which doesn’t bear repeating. Suffice it to say, Burke’s goal is to effectively legalize discrimination of all kinds in K-12 schools. At one point, she even sneers that “the media will see this as an attack on civil rights.” Yes. And rightfully so.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“For example, under the Biden Administration’s proposed Title IX regulations, schools could be required to assist a child with a social or medical gender transition without parental consent or to withhold information from parents about a child’s social transition (e.g., changing their names or pronouns).”
The claim that schools could be “required” to assist with a child’s gender transition without parental consent or to withhold information from parents is inaccurate.
The proposed regulations aim to ensure that students – including transgender students – are not discriminated against in schools. This could include respecting a student’s chosen name or pronouns to create a supportive environment. I’ll add here that respecting someone’s identity harms no one and costs nothing.
The parental consent issue varies by state law and school policy. Title IX’s proposed changes don’t dictate how schools handle parental consent. They focus on preventing discrimination and harassment. Some school policies, particularly in certain districts or states, may allow students to request changes to their name or pronouns without parental notification if doing so could lead to harm or hostility at home. This is meant to prioritize student safety and well-being, particularly for vulnerable students.
The claim that schools could be “required” to hide information from parents is also misleading. Schools might, in some circumstances, respect a student’s privacy or safety concerns, but this isn’t mandated in the proposed Title IX rules. Again, the focus is on preventing discriminatory treatment, not mandating secrecy.
Burke here is gravely offended by the idea that public schools SHOULDN’T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST TRANSGENDER STUDENTS, BUT SHOULD TREAT THEM RESPECTFULLY. So offended that she’s compelled here to lie about the intent of the proposed regulations.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hormone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and surgeries without parental involvement does not reduce the suicidality of these young people and may even increase suicide rates.”
“Heritage Foundation research finds…” is a red flag, considering they fabricated their research on government employees29 in order to justify paying them less. This assertion, like that one, is completely wrong.
Legitimate studies have found that family and social support30 are associated with reduced prevalence of suicidal thoughts and attempts in transgender youth. It should surprise no thinking person to learn that if you treat transgender kids like human beings worthy of respect, they’re less likely to kill themselves.
“Minority stressors, such as discrimination experiences, family rejection, and stigma, are commonly reported by transgender people and are associated with higher risk of suicide thoughts and attempts. These include experiences of discrimination, mistreatment, or violence in education, employment, housing, health care, in places of public accommodations, from law enforcement, and in other areas of life.”
In short, the policies Burke is proposing directly correlate with an INCREASE in suicide among transgender youth. Need more?
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“Radical actors inside and outside government are promoting harmful identity politics that replaces biological sex with subjective notions of “gender identity” and bases a person’s worth on his or her race, sex, or other identities.”
By “basing their worth”, Severino is implying that “radical actors” are valuing or assessing individuals based on characteristics like race, sex, gender identity, or other personal identities, rather than on individual abilities, actions, or merits.
A look at the way Olympic boxer Imane Khelif was treated by conservatives reveals that this is complete garbage. It was certainly not liberals or “radical actors” who accused Khelif of being transgender and harassed her mercilessly, ignoring her actual abilities, actions, talents, and merits, and making everything about her entirely about a gender identity that they’d completely fabricated in their minds (Khelif is not trans, conservatives simply deemed her “insufficiently female” for their liking.) If Severino were projecting any harder, here, he’d be on the moon.
“Right-wing extremists — including Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Elon Musk — alongside gender-binary zealots like J.K. Rowling are currently hurling vitriol at a cis woman boxer, Imane Khelif of Algeria, following the athlete’s swift defeat of her Italian opponent in an Olympic match in Paris on Thursday. Khelif is a female athlete who was deemed by the International Olympic Committee to be eligible to compete. She is only the latest woman of color in sports to be deemed insufficiently female by a right-wing commentariat obsessed with forging the strictest gender binaries, contrary to social, biological, and medical realities.” [Source]
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services here.