Topic: Transgender Concerns
“Look at America under the ruling and cultural elite today: Inflation is ravaging family budgets, drug overdose deaths continue to escalate, and children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries.”
This is baseless fearmongering and bigotry.
Roberts goes on to say that after the 1970’s, the political right led the United States to “historic political, economic, and global victories.”
Fact check: The economy does better under Democratic leadership, and always has. The New York Times reported in February 2021 that: “Since 1933, the economy has grown at an annual average rate of 4.6 percent under Democratic presidents and 2.4 percent under Republicans.” [Source]
Contextual analysis of foreword here.
“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.
“Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms; Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists; Woke bureaucrats at the Pentagon force troops to attend “training” seminars about “white privilege”; and Bureaucrats at the State Department infuse U.S. foreign aid programs with woke extremism about “intersectionality” and abortion.”
In 2020, Russell Vought, also a material contributor to Project 2025, ordered the Air Force to stop using training materials that mention race. [Source] Vought called diversity and unconscious bias training intended to create inclusive environments “un-American propaganda training sessions.” Deeply, deeply racist.
Full contextual analysis of 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.
“Exceptions for individuals who are already predisposed to require medical treatment (for example, HIV positive or suffering from gender dysphoria) should be removed, and those with gender dysphoria should be expelled from military service.”
Yikes. It’s interesting that he specifically sites HIV and gender dysphoria (gotta cover the homophobic and transphobic bases, I suppose.) “Requiring ongoing medical treatment” applies to people with cancer, lupus, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, pregnancy, and so much more. It’s also important to note that military leadership does not support removing transgender individuals from their ranks.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
“Reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service, and the use of public monies for transgender surgeries or to facilitate abortion for servicemembers should be ended.”
The prevalence of rape in the military is well-known. In 2018 alone, there were an estimated 20,500 sexual assaults on 13,000 women and 7,500 men. Donald Trump, of course, has dismissed this as “normal” and even expected:
Call us crazy, Donald, but we expected the men not to rape the women. That’s a real tweet that’s still up today. The image is linked to it.
In any case, ending abortion services for military personnel is not only an infringement of freedom of choice, but another insidious form of forcing women to give birth to their rapists’ children.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense 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.
“What’s more, NIH has long “been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science.” The next HHS secretary should immediately put an end to the department’s foray into woke transgender activism.”
This is nothing more than transphobia/cheap pandering to transphobes.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare 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.