Thursday, November 25, 2021

International Olympic Committee Says Biological Male Trans Athletes Should Not Have to Lower Testosterone to Compete in Women’s Events

The International Olympic Committee recommended that sports organizations allow biologically male, transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports without lowering their testosterone levels.

The committee stated that no athlete should be excluded from competition based on unverified, alleged, or perceived unfair competitive advantage due to biological sex in a Tuesday report. The report says athletes should compete in sports based on their self-determined gender identity and should not be subject to “targeted testing” to determine biological sex.

“Athletes should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage due to their sex variations, physical appearance and/or transgender status,” the report said.

The International Olympic Committee went on to state that athletes should never be pressured to undergo “medically unnecessary treatments,” including hormone therapy, which some transgender people use to lower their testosterone to the level to that of a biological female.

A Sports Councils’ Equality Group report released in September found that biologically male athletes have unfair advantages over female athletes retained even after a biological male undergoes testosterone suppression to affirm a female gender identity.

The Sports Councils’ Equality Group report found that “transgender women are on average likely to retain physical advantage in terms of physique, stamina, and strength.”

The International Olympic Committee report is not legally binding, but it replaced the committee’s own 2015 guidelines that limited athletes’ testosterone levels, NBC News reported. Before 2015, the International Olympic Committee’s guidelines would, in some cases, require genital surgery prior to eligibility for competition.


Christian florist settling with same-sex couple after nearly a decade fighting iconic religious liberty case

Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman has agreed to settle with the same-sex couple that sued her for refusing to serve their wedding – capping off nearly a decade of litigation in one of the most iconic First Amendment cases this century.

On Thursday afternoon, Stutzman's attorneys sent the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) an agreement to withdraw her Supreme Court petition in exchange for them declining to pursue further legal action. The 76-year-old grandmother told Fox News that she's retiring and leaving her business, Arlene's Flowers, to its employees.

The settlement, obtained by Fox News, shows that both parties have agreed to its terms.

As part of the agreement, Stutzman will pay the couple – Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed – $5,000 and they will cease pursuing damages against her business and personal assets.

In an exclusive interview Wednesday, Stutzman said that her faith was "not for sale" and that it was time for her to step aside as other religious liberty cases made their way through the courts.

"We're all in trouble – whether we're religious or not – when we don't have the freedom to live consistent with our faith and our beliefs, when I don't have the freedom to run my business according to my beliefs, live my life according to my beliefs," she told Fox News.

"Rob and Curt have every right to live the way they do and the way they feel with their beliefs, and I'm just asking for that same [right]."

Meanwhile, advocates like the ACLU have held up cases like Stutzman's as being part of an ongoing struggle for civil rights. "No one should walk into a store and have to wonder whether they will be turned away because of who they are," Ria Tabacco Mar, an ACLU lawyer representing the couple, said in July. "Preventing that kind of humiliation and hurt is exactly why we have nondiscrimination laws."

On Thursday, Ingersoll and Freed released a statement that read: "We took on this case because we were worried about the harm being turned away would cause LGBTQ people. We are glad the Washington Supreme Court rulings will stay in place to ensure that same-sex couples are protected from discrimination and should be served by businesses like anyone else. We are also pleased to support our local PFLAG’s work to support LGBTQ people in the Tri-Cities area. It was painful to be turned away and we are thankful that this long journey for us is finally over."

Starting in 2013, Stutzman's case was litigated amid a heated debate over same-sex relationships as well as the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Eight years later, the court declined to hear Stutzman's appeal – leaving in place a lower court decision that required religious creative professionals to serve same-sex ceremonies in Washington state.

Stutzman, along with Colorado baker Jack Phillips, have become heroes for religious conservatives seeking Christian examples of flouting cultural pressures. Besides public backlash, Stutzman also faced potentially crippling financial consequences as the ACLU targeted her personal assets in its lawsuit.

Thursday's settlement amount is significantly lower than Stutzman's attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) feared she might pay. But the intensely personal nature of this case will likely leave long-lasting impacts on the parties involved and the nation as a whole.


What Is It with Hollywood’s Love Affair with Child Abusing Perverts?

The Rittenhouse affair

Hollywood's brightest stars are shining their love down on disgusting perverts for all to see. When it comes to choosing between a convicted child rapist and a normal citizen, they go all Lincoln Project. And we normal people should respond accordingly.

There's reliably pinko star Mark Ruffalo, who tweeted: "We come together to mourn the lives lost to the same racist system that devalues Black lives and devalued the lives of Anthony and JoJo. #ReimagineKenosha." Who is "we," sucker? You mean both Bruce Banner and the Hulk? Because you can count the rest of us out. And can someone explain how it would be possible to "devalue" the likes of a convicted child rapist? What was his value? Cute nickname, too – JoJo.

America's sweetheart, Reese Witherspoon, was outraged that normal people had the ability to prevent convicted child rapists from killing them: "No one should be able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon, cross state lines and kill 2 people, wound another and go free. In what world is this safe ... for any of us?" Actually, citizens should be able to do all these things in conformity with the law regarding self-defense against convicted child rapists. I'm sure a "JoJo" would totally get by her armed security; she at least has the excuse that she might have just been being a jerk again.

And then there is the Mandalorian himself, Pedro Pascal, with his pronouns in his bio, mourning the loss to humanity that was Kyle's lawful exercise of the right to self-defense against a convicted child rapist attacking a minor: "Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 27, murdered August 25th, 2020. Rest In Peace." You know, Disney is supposed to be targeted toward kids – I guess Pedro misunderstood the concept. Perhaps we can all look forward to a pretty dark plotline involving Baby Yoda next season – if any of us watch.

Maria Shriver, a Kennedy kid once married to withered Hollywood action star Arnold Schwarzenegger, had to explain to her adult son – presumably not the one Ah-nuld spawned after impregnating his maid – how it was somehow possible for normal people to defend themselves against convicted child rapists: "I'm trying to take a beat to digest the Rittenhouse verdict. My son just asked me how it's possible that he didn't get charged for anything. How is that possible? I don't have an answer for him."

Maybe a Kennedy is not the right person to decry folks getting away with murder. And apparently, the only people who should have guns are the armed guards defending your family compound. Look, I don't blame the Kennedys for using people with guns to protect themselves – two of them were murdered by leftists. But I do resent that they don't seem to think the rest of us get to protect ourselves from being murdered by leftists, too.

On the plus side, at least Alec Baldwin seems to have had nothing to say publicly about Kyle. But, of course, he probably will.

Oh, and as of early the next morning after the Waukesha massacre, want to guess if any of them had spared a tweet for the crushed kids and run-over dancing grannies? Maria Shriver did, and good for her. She seems more clueless, cloistered, and entitled than evil. Mark, Reese, and Pedro seemed not so chatty about this latest atrocity. Hey, gotta support the narrative!

In any case, how totally on-brand this all is.

Why is the constellation of Hollywood stars so all in on backing the pedos? And these aren't edgy artists but mainstream actors who put out what is purportedly family entertainment. Ruffalo does comic book movies. Pascal does Disney junk. Witherspoon does big-budget Hallmark movies. What gives?

I consulted with acting legend Nick Searcy, who does not play the pinko game, and whose new film on the fake insurrection, "Capitol Punishment," comes out Thanksgiving Day. He observes that the studios, in league with publicists, often make sure all the stars get the memo on the right take on the issue du jour. And few stars push back because a lot of Hollywood people come to Tinseltown young. They have little life experience, and then they get some attention and they never grow up. Many dropped out of high school and are extremely sensitive about that because all the executives they deal with have Ivy League degrees.

Adopting leftist poses is an easy way to get in the in-club, to be treated like their views matter, to be taken seriously. That's really what they want; the only needier people than actors are stand-up comics. They have this huge emotional void and they fill it with leftist nonsense because they get rewarded for doing it. And the fact that people expressing normal views – conservatives – get blacklisted is yet another incentive to go along and get along.

So, what do we normal people do? Well, we probably shouldn't be giving money to people who hate us. If you are still shelling out bucks for Marvel movies and woke Star Wars, you are empowering and paying for the culture war against you. Does it seem adverse to conservative principles to avoid alleged entertainment put out by people just because they hate us? It was once, but if there's a line to be drawn, it's supporting convicted child rapists.

Time to draw the line.


Cancel Culture Claims Another U.S. President

In 2020, cancel culture claimed scores of victims, from statues and monuments to food brands and more. But the push to continue removing culturally and historically significant items from society continued unabated in 2021.

Take what happened in New York City on Monday, for example.

After standing in city hall for 187 years, a statue of Thomas Jefferson was removed following a vote from a mayoral commission to take it down because the third president was a slave owner.

About a dozen workers with Marshall Fine Arts spent several hours carefully removing the painted plaster monument from its pedestal inside the City Council chambers and surrounding it with sections of foam and wooden boards.

They then lowered the massive structure down the stairs leading to the building’s first-floor rotunda with a pulley system and ushered the Founding Father out the back door.

The 1833 statue will be on a long-term loan to the New York Historical Society, which plans to have Jefferson’s model survive in its lobby and reading room.

Keri Butler, executive director of the Public Design Commission that voted to banish the statue, at first tried to block the press from witnessing its removal. Butler relented after members of the mayor’s office and City Council intervened.

The commission also attempted to vote on the statue’s removal without a public hearing on the controversial move until The Post revealed the plan. (New York Post)

As Mollie Hemingway pointed out last year, former President Trump warned in 2017 this would happen and was mocked for believing the cultural Marxists would move on from Confederate statues to former presidents.

Rep. Thomas Massie shared the story, likening it to George Orwell's "1984."




No comments: