Topic: Gender Ideology
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.
“(Whether it be) mask and vaccine mandates, school and business closures, efforts to keep Americans from driving gas cars or using gas stoves, or efforts to defund the police, indoctrinate schoolchildren, alter beloved books, abridge free speech, undermine the colorblind ideal, or deny the biological reality that there are only two sexes, the Left’s steady stream of insanity appears to be never-ending.”
That’s a lot to unpack.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“Finally, the next Administration will face a significant challenge in unwinding policies and procedures that are used to advance radical gender, racial, and equity initiatives under the banner of science. Similarly, the Biden Administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding. As with other federal departments and agencies, the Biden Administration’s leveraging of the federal government’s resources to further the woke agenda should be reversed and scrubbed from all policy manuals, guidance documents, and agendas, and scientific excellence and innovation should be restored as the OSTP’s top priority.”
Again, Vought’s racism, bigotry, and science denial is on full display here. It’s utterly laughable that he cites “scientific excellence” as something he’s interested in advancing, but the scientific community OVERWHELMINGLY agrees that climate change is an issue – 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change and global warming.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systemic racism.”
This is a grotesquely exaggerated and partisan interpretation of reality. Yes, the Biden administration rescinded the disastrous Mexico City Policy. (And it should be noted here that USAID still follows U.S. federal law, which prohibits using federal funds directly for abortions in most cases and has since 1973 – see the Helms Amendment.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development 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.
“Short of this, the Secretary of Education should insist that the department serve parents and American ideals, not advocates whose message is that children can choose their own sex, that America is “systemically racist,” that math itself is racist, and that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ideal of a colorblind society should be rejected in favor of reinstating a color-conscious society.”
There are so many mischaracterizations, oversimplifications, and inflammatory language inherent to this statement that it’s difficult to know where to begin.
First, schools don’t “push the idea that children can choose their own sex.” The statement conflates sex (biological attributes) with gender (social and personal identity.) Schools support the idea that gender identity can sometimes differ from biological sex, and that children should be supported in expressing that if they so choose. It’s not “pushed.” One wonders how they intend to enforce such ideas. Teachers firmly saying “nuh-uh!” to non-gender-conforming children? What would the alternative be? Going back to hitting children’s knuckles with a cane[Source]24, as we used to do with left-handed children, when we thought there was something “wrong” with that? Where’s the line? Are we going to corporally punish tomboys, or boys who grow their hair long? Who determines what a boy is supposed to look like, and what a girl is supposed to look like? How far can one deviate before the way they look is an issue for the government? This is a ridiculous amount of government control over what amounts to nothing more than transphobia.
I touched on systemic racism and the “colorblind” ideal in previous sections. Absolutely nobody sane is claiming that “math itself is racist”, this is an insane statement. Efforts to reform math education focus on ensuring equitable access to high-quality math instruction for all students, which includes recognizing that students from underprivileged backgrounds may face barriers that are unrelated to their mathematical abilities.
As for Dr. King, they’re completely mischaracterizing his vision of a society where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin as a “colorblind ideal.” Dr. King strongly advocated for the dismantling of racist systems, addressing racial injustices, and acknowledged that color-conscious approaches were necessary to address inequality – basically the exact opposite of everything Project 2025 stands for. They’re bastardizing his legacy. King was 100% a radical in his time, as much as white people would like to believe that his “I have a dream” speech was the extent of his politics. Things MLK also said?
“However difficult it is to hear, however shocking it is to hear, we’ve got to face the fact that America is a racist country.”
“Large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility & the status quo than about justice and humanity.”
“America is going to hell if we don’t use her vast resources to end poverty and make it possible for all God’s children to have the basic necessities of life.”
“We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.”
“The trouble is that we live in a failed system. Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we’re going to have to change the system.”
I believe that proper respect for Dr. King does not exist in the absence of a commitment to change these things; to right these injustices. And that means supporting lawmakers who have made a commitment to right injustice, not perpetrate it.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare 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.
“The new Administration must quickly move to rescind these changes, which add a new “nonbinary” sex category to OCR’S data collection and issue a new CRDC that will collect data directly relevant to OCR’s statutory enforcement authority.”
She’s arguing here for stopping the Office of Civil Rights Data Collection (CDRC) from collecting any information on nonbinary students and removing that as an option. Only students identifying as either male or female shall be counted.
This seems arbitrary and discriminatory for no good reason, and is another example of the Bruno Strategy at work. If we don’t count nonbinary students in our statistics, they stop existing!
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on July 12, 2022, the Biden Education Department seeks to gut the hard-earned rights of women with its changes to the department’s regulations implementing Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities. Instead, the Biden Administration has sought to trample women’s and girls’ athletic opportunities and due process on campus, threaten free speech and religious liberty, and erode parental rights in elementary and secondary education regarding sensitive issues of sex.”
This is thinly veiled transphobia. She’s so desperate to discriminate against trans people that the assertion “prohibiting discrimination based on sex has trampled women’s rights” just came out of her mouth. Wow. Just no.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.