Topic: LGBTQ+
“Divisive symbols such as the rainbow flag or the Black Lives Matter flag have no place next to the Stars and Stripes at our embassies.”
This is a dig at Antony Blinken’s okaying these types of flags to be flown at our embassies around the world, if they so chose. From the linked article: “The cable contained a hedge, though, saying the authorization is not a requirement and chiefs of mission who run each embassy or consulate can choose whether to fly the Pride flag or showcase other symbols connoting support for LGBTQ rights based on what is “appropriate in light of local conditions.” The Trump Administration had previously forbidden this.
In March 2024, Biden encouraged a bipartisan passing of the spending bill, despite the fact that it supported reversing this authorization. Embassies in Brazil and Curacao were two which chose to fly the Black Lives Matter flag at their embassies in honor of Black History Month. [Source] [Source].
In any case, it’s telling that the writer explicitly states their belief that thinking that “black lives matter” or supporting LGBTQ people’s right to exist peacefully is “divisive.” It’s only divisive if you’re a racist or a homophobe/transphobe.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2: The Common Defense here.
“African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them.”
This is an absolute misrepresentation of what’s really going on. In fact, abortion is legal in much of Africa29.
From the linked article: “And despite the expanded legality of the procedure in places like Ghana, Congo, Ethiopia and Mozambique, some doctors and nurses say they’ve become increasingly wary of openly providing abortions. They’re fearful of triggering the ire of opposition groups that have become emboldened since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning the nationwide right to abortion.”
Skinner is erroneously claiming that Africa balks at “woke” policies, when in fact, they’re responding to OUR oppressive policies and afraid they’ll be endangered by zealots who are emboldened by those oppressive policies.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State 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.
“The next secretary should also reverse the Biden Administration’s focus on “‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage,” replacing such policies with those encouraging marriage, work, motherhood, fatherhood, and nuclear families.”
By “subsidizing single motherhood”, the author means government assistance programs like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), and SNAP (food stamps), and any other form of financial aid that helps single mothers support their children. They think that by taking these things away, they’ll be “encouraging nuclear families”, but the reality is that it plunges many single mothers into poverty, and incentivizes them to stay in abusive marriages or relationships because there is no help for them outside of that. Vice president-elect J.D. Vance has publicly suggested that kids suffer when marriages fail, even when those marriages are violent (if not explicitly saying women should stay in violent marriages for the sake of their children, as the left is fond of claiming):
“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is this idea that, ‘Well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term.’ And maybe it worked out for the moms and dad, though I’m skeptical. But it really didn’t work out for the kids of those marriages.” [Source]
Seems to me, however, that’s EXACTLY what he’s at least implying. And what of deadbeat dads who don’t want to be involved with their children? Why would you punish those mothers and children? Because punishing women is part of the appeal of these policies, for them. And has no needy family with a father figure ever existed? Has there never been a single father? Why are we singling out women when we’re deciding we’re denying needy people help?
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare 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.
“Under President Biden, the mission has shifted to “promoting equity in everything we do” for the sake of “populations sharing a particular characteristic” including race, sexuality, gender identification, ethnicity, and a host of other categories.”
In this context, “equity” means ensuring fair access to health care and social services for underserved populations. This was the goal of the Biden Administration’s efforts, which appears to offend Severino. The focus on equity aims to reduce disparities in health outcomes based on factors such as race, gender, income, and geographic location. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the administration emphasized equitable vaccine distribution to communities of color and rural areas that were disproportionately affected.
By “populations sharing a particular characteristic”, he’s talking about the focus on specific populations that have historically faced disparities in health outcomes, including racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others. The goal is to address these issues by improving access to care, combating discrimination in healthcare settings, and ensuring that public health initiatives are inclusive of all communities. This approach includes efforts to improve maternal health for women of color, address mental health and provide addiction services in underserved areas, and support LGBTQ+ health initiatives.
The phrase “for the sake of” implies that equity efforts are purely political or symbolic, rather than addressing real and documented health disparities. However, there is significant evidence that certain groups – such as racial minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals – face worse health outcomes50 due to factors like discrimination, lower access to healthcare, and higher rates of chronic conditions.
So, we can conclude here that Severino is completely ignoring the facts in favor of an ineffectual “colorblind” strategy that does nothing to reduce bad health outcomes for minorities.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services here.
“HHS, through ACF and the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), should repeal the unnecessary 2016 regulation that imposes nonstatutory sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination conditions on agency grants and return to the policy of maximizing the options for placing vulnerable children in their forever homes.”
In context, this is a mandate allowing adoption agencies to legally discriminate against same-sex couples who want to adopt, or against unmarried adoptive parents.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services here.
“Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear: All other family forms involve higher levels of instability (the average length of same-sex marriages is half that of heterosexual marriages); financial stress or poverty; and poor behavioral, psychological, or educational outcomes.”
This is categorically untrue. Research finds that kids raised by same-sex couples fare the same as – or better than – kids of straight couples. [Source]
“On some metrics, children of sexual minority parents actually outperformed their peers from traditional families, particularly when it came to psychological adjustment and child-parent relationships.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services here.