Insane female supremacy in Canada

Janice Fiamengo

The moment I knew we had passed over into complete Covid infantilisation occurred last May 2021, when Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia’s chief health officer and a much-celebrated ‘woman who led us through the pandemic’ announced that she was mulling a special British Columbia Hug Day. Those of us who had supposedly been waiting throughout the previous 14 months for government permission to hug were to be grateful for Dr. Henry’s ongoing, compassionate guidance.

For well over a year we had been instructed non-stop about distancing, self-isolating, quarantining, sheltering in place, masking, sterilising, following arrows in stores, and keeping within our ‘bubbles’. We had been sternly lectured against holiday gathering with more than 5 or 6. Some adult children kept away (or were kept away) from their parents for months, waving to them through a window pane or leaving care packages at the door; many people suffered and died alone in consequence.

Where we lived on the Fraser River in New Westminster, the city set up a taxpayer-funded ‘path monitor’ to direct foot traffic on a narrow part of a popular outdoor walkway so that no one would pass face-to-face. British Columbia health authorities even went so far as to advise using ‘glory holes’ for safe sex.

Now we were to be told when and, presumably, how we might embrace in government-approved fashion.

In the end, BC Hug Day was quietly shelved for reasons that were never made clear. It wasn’t because BC residents responded with jeers of derision, telling Covid Leader Henry to butt out of our personal decisions. At least some number of British Columbians were triggered by the announcement, fearful of being hugged without their consent and so traumatised by the pandemic that they preferred to wait months longer, if not years, before they would be psychologically ready for such contact. Their concerns were respectfully reported in a local paper.

It’s possible the government was concerned that any uptick in Covid cases would be blamed on an increase in sanctioned hugging, and thus BC’s record of stern but motherly caring would be tarnished.

Whatever the thinking, the discussion about hugging, coming on the heels of the previous 14 months of warnings, scoldings, tearful and quavering-voiced announcements, and praise of Canadians’ compliance made it crystal clear that whatever autonomy we might once have thought we possessed was a thing of the past. And this is not even to touch the state-sponsored hate-mongering, fantasies of exclusion, and mass punishments that erupted over vaccine passports a few months later.

If Covid was a war, as it was frequently depicted as being, it was one in which none of the typical masculine virtues required by war were in evidence. Gone was the valorisation of stoicism, courage, forgetfulness of self, rational risk assessment, and the curtailment of emotionalism. In their place came generalised anxiety, self-righteous vindictiveness, and the longing for (an unattainable) safety at all costs.

In his book United States of Fear: How America Fell Victim to a Mass Delusional Psychosis, American psychiatrist Mark McDonald noted the disappearance of men from the Covid state as a key factor in our descent into social psychosis. Of course men remained in existence, but their roles were reduced to enthusiastic compliance with even the most trivial of health rules.

As a psychiatrist with extensive clinical experience, McDonald was uniquely positioned to diagnose some of the underlying causes of Covid panic. He notes in the book that women, evolved to be hyper-attentive to the needs of infants and simultaneously aware of their own vulnerability as maternal caregivers, tend to be far more susceptible to anxiety disorders than men. Women evolved over millennia to look to men for protection of themselves and their children (p. 30-31), and men evolved to provide it.

Yet as Covid experts encouraged us all to worry about the safety of our families, with daily case counts and endless updates on (de-contextualised) death numbers, ‘men failed […] dismally in their duty to provide a sense of safety and security for the women in their lives’ (p. 41). When some women insisted fearfully on rules to protect themselves and their loved ones – even irrational rules such as outdoor masking and limitations on how children played together – men, whose traditional role has been to ‘calm and ground women’s fears’ (p. 39), either did nothing or went along. Some men, of course, led the charge.

The emasculation of men had been prepared for a long time, and under Covid it came to fruition. Men could not reassure the women in their lives or stand up to the infantilising Mother State. They could not speak out to put the Covid threat in perspective. Most of them couldn’t even decide independently whether to go to work in the morning. McDonald is well aware of the social forces that have contributed to the feminisation of men – he notes especially how ‘healthy expressions of masculinity […] have all been redefined as universally unhealthy’ (p. 52) – but even he does not fully understand the depth of the anti-male attack that prepared the ground for Covid-enforced male passivity.

For decades now, with the advent of no-fault divorce, mother-favouring custody laws, the determination to stamp out (subjectively defined) alleged sexual harassment, and the mandate to ‘Believe Women’, it has been made clear to men that their lives and careers remain intact entirely at the pleasure of feminist ideologues or potentially vengeful ex-wives. One wrong move, an inappropriate comment, a gaze that is too intense, a tone-deaf request for a date, a sexual encounter where the woman is left unhappy, or merely having married the wrong woman, can lead – and too often does lead – to the ruination of a man’s reputation, a forced psychiatric evaluation, the garnisheeing of his wages, imprisonment on false charges, and the judicial kidnapping of his children.

Scholar Stephen Baskerville has extensively documented the injustices in his devastatingly compendious Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family and his more recent The New Politics of Sex: The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties, and the Growth of Governmental Power. For a heartbreaking and fully researched personal account, see Greg Ellis’s The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law.

For well over 20 years, it has been made more and more difficult for men to respond as men once did, firmly and unplacatingly, because many men now know that everything they have built in their lives – and their ability to continue to build, to contribute their gifts, to live a normal life, to be a father to their children – now hinges on their avoiding the fury of a state-supported complaining woman. It is this bedrock vulnerability, the reality that even guiltless men can be imprisoned on a woman’s word and can lose their life savings and children, that more than anything else has silenced and paralysed many decent and brave men.

Of course, messaging during Covid built on this reality, reminding men every day of their status as potential wrongdoers held up for public scorn. Countless articles and reports during Covid berated men for failing to take the pandemic seriously enough, for allegedly having poor hand hygiene, for having a weaker immune system than women and thus dying or being hospitalised in higher numbers, for endangering others with their alleged carelessness. It was seen as the height of selfishness for men to want to keep their business open during lockdowns. Men (and women, though it was primarily men) who protested the lockdowns were dismissed as Yahoos by an (allegedly pro-business!) Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Over and over, Covid policies struck at the heart of masculine authority and being. It denied men the fundamental opportunity to work, to lead their communities, to make decisions for their families. And the regime wouldn’t have been so successful if it hadn’t already been the case that any man who has been paying attention over the past decades knows that he no longer controls his own life.

The pandemic demonstrated that even for a virus posing a minimal threat to the general public (see the infection fatality rate here), the new dispensation would elevate government-defined ‘safety’ as the sole good and would insist on control and compliance, eliminating individual autonomy, demonising (and in some cases criminalising) forms of dissent (even alternative forms of caring such as feeding soup to the poor), and ensuring near-total reliance on the Mother State.

Despite the tears in their eyes and the tremors in their voices, the all-caring Covid Mothers such as Bonnie Henry evince a highly selective compassion and an unabashedly partisan sense of social justice that is willing to destroy those it deems a threat.

If this is our female future, it is grotesque and terrifying to behold.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/09/from-canada-with-madness/

************************************************************

Biden Democrats Are Not The Workingman’s Friend

In the age of Donald Trump Democrats became, not the party of the American working man, but the party of get-out-of-jail-free cards for criminals, free stuff for young urban professionals and special rights for LGTQ++ and illegal aliens.

Rather than protect American workers from low wage illegal alien competition, President Joe Biden has opened the southern border to a record number of illegal aliens.

Border Patrol agents have made about 1.82 million arrests at the southern border so far in the government’s fiscal year, which runs from October to the end of September. The number beats the record set last fiscal year, which was 1.66 million apprehensions in the year ending September 2021.

With about two months left in the agency’s fiscal year, full-year arrests are expected to break the two million mark for the first time, analysts said according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal.

And leading Democrats, such as Senators Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have called for the abolition of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency – which would make Biden’s de facto open borders policy a permanent reality.

Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has long-advocated debt-free college and the Democrats’ most influential members of Congress, such as New York Democratic-Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have made free college and Medicare for all, including illegal aliens, hallmarks of their legislative agenda.

Recognizing that taking such an unpopular vote would be a suicide pact for congressional Democrats Biden is trying to use presidential emergency powers to accomplish most of that agenda. Biden’s $10,000 student loan “forgiveness” order for college-educated debtors with incomes of up to $125,000, proposed to be accomplished without a vote in Congress, tramples the Constitution and spits in the eye of working Americans who chose not to go to college or who worked to pay their loans on time.

As Kimberly Amadeo explained in an article for The Balance, the Bureau of Labor Statistics only counts people without jobs who are included in the labor force for the “U-3 rate,” that’s the “unemployment rate most often reported by the media. To be included in that calculation a worker must have looked for a job in the last four weeks to remain in the labor force.

The real unemployment rate (U-6) includes the underemployed, the marginally attached, and discouraged workers. It's usually much higher than the U-3 unemployment rate - the rate most often reported in the media. The U-6 real unemployment rate is a broader definition of unemployment than the official U-3 rate. The U-6 was 6.7% in June 2022, down from the rate of 7.1% seen in May 2022.

Millions refuse to even look for a job—resulting in a labor force participation lagging substantially below the already low pre-COVID-19 levels and forcing under-staffed businesses to hobble along while facing soaring costs. The drop in participation relative to pre-pandemic represents more than 3 million people absent from the workforce, reported Joel Griffith in a report for The Heritage Foundation.

And let’s not forget the Democrats’ war on energy jobs.

“Killing 10,000 jobs and taking $2.2 billion in payroll out of workers’ pockets is not what Americans need or want right now,” Andy Black, president and CEO of the Association of Oil Pipelines, said when Biden killed the Keystone XL pipeline on day one of his administration.

Biden Democrats Are Not The Workingman’s Friend
Over the past few Labor Days, we have pointed out that while Democrats once presented themselves as the party of the working guy; pro-union, pro-American manufacturing, pro-infrastructure and anti-communist, today’s Democratic Party looks nothing like the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy.

In the age of Donald Trump Democrats became, not the party of the American working man, but the party of get-out-of-jail-free cards for criminals, free stuff for young urban professionals and special rights for LGTQ++ and illegal aliens.

Rather than protect American workers from low wage illegal alien competition, President Joe Biden has opened the southern border to a record number of illegal aliens.

Border Patrol agents have made about 1.82 million arrests at the southern border so far in the government’s fiscal year, which runs from October to the end of September. The number beats the record set last fiscal year, which was 1.66 million apprehensions in the year ending September 2021.

With about two months left in the agency’s fiscal year, full-year arrests are expected to break the two million mark for the first time, analysts said according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal.

And leading Democrats, such as Senators Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have called for the abolition of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency – which would make Biden’s de facto open borders policy a permanent reality.

Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has long-advocated debt-free college and the Democrats’ most influential members of Congress, such as New York Democratic-Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have made free college and Medicare for all, including illegal aliens, hallmarks of their legislative agenda.

Recognizing that taking such an unpopular vote would be a suicide pact for congressional Democrats Biden is trying to use presidential emergency powers to accomplish most of that agenda. Biden’s $10,000 student loan “forgiveness” order for college-educated debtors with incomes of up to $125,000, proposed to be accomplished without a vote in Congress, tramples the Constitution and spits in the eye of working Americans who chose not to go to college or who worked to pay their loans on time.

As Kimberly Amadeo explained in an article for The Balance, the Bureau of Labor Statistics only counts people without jobs who are included in the labor force for the “U-3 rate,” that’s the “unemployment rate most often reported by the media. To be included in that calculation a worker must have looked for a job in the last four weeks to remain in the labor force.

The real unemployment rate (U-6) includes the underemployed, the marginally attached, and discouraged workers. It's usually much higher than the U-3 unemployment rate - the rate most often reported in the media. The U-6 real unemployment rate is a broader definition of unemployment than the official U-3 rate. The U-6 was 6.7% in June 2022, down from the rate of 7.1% seen in May 2022.

Millions refuse to even look for a job—resulting in a labor force participation lagging substantially below the already low pre-COVID-19 levels and forcing under-staffed businesses to hobble along while facing soaring costs. The drop in participation relative to pre-pandemic represents more than 3 million people absent from the workforce, reported Joel Griffith in a report for The Heritage Foundation.

And let’s not forget the Democrats’ war on energy jobs.

“Killing 10,000 jobs and taking $2.2 billion in payroll out of workers’ pockets is not what Americans need or want right now,” Andy Black, president and CEO of the Association of Oil Pipelines, said when Biden killed the Keystone XL pipeline on day one of his administration.

The Laborers’ International Union of North America called Biden’s decision “both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working members who will lose good-paying, middle-class family-supporting jobs.” All-in-all some 839,000 jobs have been lost in the energy sector and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline alone cost 11,000 jobs, including 8,000 good paying union jobs.

On the national level Democrats have put stopping “climate change” ahead of jobs for coal miners – once the bedrock of the Democratic Party in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

The Biden administration proved Republicans right when announcing aggressive climate change executive actions in January 2021, with special climate envoy John Kerry using the timeworn line that “the same people can do those [green energy] jobs, but the choice of doing the solar power one now is a better choice.”

The problem is that no one is building new “green energy” facilities in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Southeastern Ohio and Wyoming coal country, leaving union miner and oil worker families little opportunity in their hometowns devastated by Democrat policies.

In almost every sector that has traditionally provided a comfortable middle-class lifestyle to America’s working families employment has plummeted.

But that shouldn’t really be a surprise, because as our friend Stephen Moore documented in an April 2021 column, to appease Democrat politicians, rank-and-file union workers are being sold out by their bosses:

Last week, the United Mine Workers of America endorsed Biden's Green New Deal. Yes, you read that right. The coal mining union bosses have embraced a proposal that outlaws coal mining.

This is about as dumb as the Pipefitters Union endorsing President Joe Biden. He repaid them with his first act as president: killing the Keystone pipeline. So, now we have the Pipefitters Union against pipelines and the coal miners union against coal.

Did anyone bother actually to ask the rank-and-file members what they thought? Can they get their union dues back?

They should. The livelihoods of more than 50,000 coal miners just got sold down the river by their union bosses.

And for what? So these miners can be given Biden welfare checks or so mining jobs, which typically pay $75,000 a year, can be replaced with solar panel installation? Ask any miner about that trade, as I have, and they will laugh in your face.

UMWA President Benedict Arnold (his real name is Cecil Roberts) conceded that his union members "may lose a few more jobs here." Still, he defended his capitulation to the Biden anti-coal radicals by saying, "We're trying to insert ourselves into this conversation because a lot of coal miners in this country and their families have suffered already some traumatic losses."

So, his solution is to make the trauma a whole lot worse thanks to the Neville Chamberlain appeasement with the green enemy fanatics of the industry.

To compound the problem, as noted above, Democrats have become the party of the illegal aliens and unlimited immigration that has suppressed the wages and destroyed the quality of life for millions of America’s working families.

More here:

https://www.conservativehq.org/post/biden-democrats-are-not-the-workingman-s-friend-1

******************************************************

The freedom to uphold an unpopular opinion

by Jeff Jacoby

LORIE SMITH is a graphic artist and Web designer in Colorado who wants to expand into the field of custom-made wedding websites. Under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, such a business would be considered a "public accommodation," which may not refuse to serve customers on the basis of sexual orientation. As Colorado officials interpret the law, if Smith offered her services for weddings between men and women, she could not lawfully refuse to do so for same-sex weddings.
That's a problem for Smith. She opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and does not want to design websites promoting something she believes is wrong. Colorado acknowledges that she "will gladly create custom graphics and websites" for LGBTQ+ clients and that she objects only to using her talents to create content that violates her religious beliefs. The state maintains, however, that she may not pick and choose: If she wishes to design websites for traditional weddings, she must be willing to do so for gay and lesbian weddings.

Smith's case is now before the Supreme Court. The justices have agreed to settle a question they ducked four years ago in a similar Colorado case, that of specialty baker Jack Phillips, who was punished because he declined to design a cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding. In a 7-2 decision, the high court ruled in Phillips's favor, but the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy was very narrow. It avoided the free-speech issue, and focused instead on the overt hostility shown by Colorado officials toward Phillips's religious beliefs.

Now the court seems ready to squarely face the hard questions: Under the First Amendment, can artists and custom designers be compelled, on nondiscrimination grounds, to express a view of which they disapprove? More broadly, when an individual's right to free speech conflicts with a compelling government or social interest, which takes priority?

Though the First Amendment was ratified in 1791, it was only 80 years ago that the Supreme Court began to grapple with such questions in earnest.

In 1942, the state of West Virginia enacted a law requiring teachers and students in all public schools to regularly salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Refusal to do so, the law stipulated, would be "regarded as an act of insubordination, and ... dealt with accordingly."

Such mandates were popular — the nation was at war and patriotic sentiment was intense. There was widespread, often vicious, hostility toward anyone unwilling to pledge their loyalty to the flag. But for Jehovah's Witnesses, a nontraditional Christian sect, saluting the flag was not possible: According to their religious understanding, doing so was tantamount to idolatry. When children from Jehovah's Witness families declined to salute the flag, they were expelled from school. Officials threatened to send them to juvenile reformatories. In some cases, the parents of such children were prosecuted for causing delinquency. Witnesses' houses of worship, called Kingdom Halls, were burned. Individual believers were beaten, mutilated, or lynched.

It was against that background of intolerance that Walter Barnette, a Jehovah's Witness from Charleston whose daughters had been expelled from school, challenged the flag-salute law in federal court. The Supreme Court had previously upheld such laws as constitutional, but now it had a change of heart. Overruling its precedent, it struck down the West Virginia law as unconstitutional — not on the grounds of religious freedom but of free speech. In an epic decision, Justice Robert Jackson declared that the protection of conscience and the right of dissent went to the very core of the First Amendment — above all when the stakes were greatest.

"Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much," Jackson wrote. The real test of that freedom "is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."

Then came one of the most lyrical and stirring passages ever penned in defense of free speech:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

With those now-famous words, the Supreme Court established what scholars call the "compelled speech doctrine" — the principle that government cannot force someone to express or endorse an opinion unwillingly. Nor can the state penalize citizens for refusing to articulate or affirm a view with which they disagree.

West Virginia v. Barnette was the first great landmark in the court's compelled-speech jurisprudence. Another was the 1977 case of Wooley v. Maynard, which involved a New Hampshire couple (also Jehovah's Witnesses) who objected to displaying their state's motto, "Live Free or Die," on their license plates. When George Maynard covered up the offending words on the license plates of his family cars, he was arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to prison.

Eventually the case reached the Supreme Court. New Hampshire was ordered to stand down. "The First Amendment," declared Chief Justice Burger's majority opinion, "protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster ... an idea they find morally objectionable."

If that was true when it came to words on a license plate, a standardized text that no one would take for the personal views of a car's owner, surely the First Amendment's protection is far stronger when it comes to the uniquely expressive work of an artist, author, or custom designer. There are plenty of off-the-shelf options available for couples who want to set up a wedding website with a minimum of fuss and expense. What Smith wishes to offer is very different: websites individually tailored to each engaged couple that reflect the creativity, expression, and artistry of Smith herself. Can Colorado force her, as a condition of entering the wedding website business, to employ those talents in a way that violates her religious convictions? No more than Barnette's daughters, as a condition of attending school, could be forced to salute the flag.

If anyone was sympathetic to the competing interests at the intersection of antidiscrimination law and the right to free speech, it was Justice Kennedy. He was the author of the court's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that the right to same-sex marriage is guaranteed by the Constitution and may not be denied by any state. Nonetheless, his decision stressed that those "who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here." He went on to underscore that the First Amendment rights of Americans who disagree with same-sex marriage must be "given proper protection" by government.

Gallup reported this month that support for same-sex marriage is now at 71 percent, an all-time high. Smith is part of a shrinking minority, her views on marriage increasingly disfavored. But the First Amendment is not in the Constitution to shelter popular opinions. It is there to make sure that people with unpopular opinions are never forced by government to deny those opinions or express a view against their will.

Colorado may disagree with Smith's ideas. But it has no right to compel her to recant. It's now up to the Supreme Court to make that clear.

https://jeffjacoby.com/26262/the-freedom-to-uphold-an-unpopular-opinion

*************************************************

Trust the Science … Except Biology

From kindergarten classrooms to human resources offices to elite academic institutions, pressure is growing for Americans to ignore what’s in front of them in favor of a new version of reality that is more “inclusive” and “updated.”

Public discourse now centers on debates about whether men can become pregnant and how to define a woman. The trend is to deny scientific reality in favor of the new wave of gender ideology.

The Biden administration has taken up the torch of this ideology by trying to redefine the word “sex” to include “gender identity” in various federal statutes, including the Affordable Care Act and Title IX, causing catastrophic effects for many groups, not the least of whom are medical professionals and female athletes.

Some doctors in Texas, though, are fighting the Biden administration in court, trying to stop this reinterpretation of “sex” in the Affordable Care Act that would force them to perform harmful medical procedures on patients seeking to alter their biological sex.

Because the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, draws some of its vital language by incorporating Title IX, the law that regulates school athletics and bans discrimination “on the basis of sex,” it necessarily affects Title IX and female athletics. That, in turn, led a group of female athletes to file a brief in support of the doctors’ case opposing the Biden administration’s attempt to redefine sex in federal law.

Doctors and female athletes have good reason to be worried.

Reinterpreting “sex” in these federal statutes would erode the basic biology that forms the foundation for science and medicine. For instance, forcing doctors to pretend that a patient cannot have prostate cancer because the patient identifies as a female will put health care professionals in an impossible situation.

And remember, this is not about ensuring access to particular procedures—some doctors do that willingly. This is about the Biden administration’s forcing doctors to get in line with an extreme political agenda, even if it means violating their conscience and forsaking their medical judgment.

And, as many now know, gender ideology also is changing the landscape of women’s sports. In 1972, Congress created Title IX to provide equal opportunities for women in education. Title IX then paved the way for women to have their own sports teams, and the next 50 years led to generations of women holding their own in sports competition.

College athlete Maddie Dichiara is one such woman who has benefited from Title IX. She has joined the growing chorus of female athletes who are concerned that the Biden administration is threatening the very existence of women’s sports.

Dichiara plays soccer for the University of Houston on a full scholarship. But the recent shift to include gender identity in the definition of “sex” already has begun to threaten the benefits that Maddie and thousands of other women enjoy.

The devastating consequence of allowing men to compete in women’s sports was probably most strikingly visible when University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas handily won the women’s 500-yard freestyle at the NCAA Division I Championships.

Thomas, who used to swim for a male team, beat two former Olympians in the same race. Some observers said Thomas hardly tried. But the women in the pool knew they were racing for second place.

Chelsea Mitchell, a Connecticut high school track standout, faced a similar situation when she was forced to compete against two males. Mitchell was one of the fastest women in the state and secured eight state championships. She would have won 12, if not for the males who breezed by her to come in first place.

It’s personal for Mitchell and Dichiara, who both joined the legal effort to support the doctors’ case in Texas. Allowing males to compete in women’s sports strips women of the opportunity to be champions.

This harmful gender narrative doesn’t affect only doctors and athletes, though. It endangers private female spaces. Once New Jersey agreed to house inmates according to how they identify, a male who identified as female impregnated two female inmates.

Or take homeless shelters that house women who have escaped from sex trafficking or have been abused by men. Redefining “sex” and allowing men to access a delicate, women’s-only space can endanger women mentally and physically. That threat almost materialized in Anchorage, Alaska, but for legal action by Alliance Defending Freedom.

Until a few years ago, everyone could agree on at least a few basic truths. Now, Americans are being told to ignore reality and the basic biological differences between males and females.

The Biden administration’s radical gender ideology agenda will endanger medical professionals, destroy women’s opportunities, and silence opposing viewpoints. Thankfully, female athletes such as Maddie Dichiara and Chelsea Mitchell are taking the lead to return us to the reality that this administration won’t acknowledge.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/08/30/trust-the-science-except-biology/

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************