Wurdz
Blither blither blither.
Fairfax School District Sued for Allowing Transgender Students into Girls’ Restrooms, Locker Rooms
As usual, the wording misses the point. The issue isn’t trans students in girls’ restrooms, it’s male students in girls’ restrooms. The problem isn’t being trans in girls’ facilities, the problem is being male there.
The plaintiff is an anonymous female student who has been enrolled in the Fairfax school district since the third grade. Because of her deeply held Roman Catholic beliefs, she doesn’t support the rule and feels that its requirement to use preferred pronouns “forces her to lie,” the filing states.
It’s got nothing to do with Catholic beliefs, deeply held or otherwise. The Catholic church is no friend to women.
FCPS adopted the first version of Regulation 2603, entitled “Gender-Expansive and Transgender Students,” in October 2020. It was later updated in April 2022.
Under these guidelines, students must take the “Student Rights and Responsibilities” test. One of the questions asks whether “a student has the right to be called by their chosen name and pronoun,” according to a copy of the form.
No. That’s a stupid idea of a “right.” If a student’s chosen name is “Donald Trump” does that student have the right to be called “Donald Trump”? And pronouns aren’t a matter of choice any more than verbs or nouns are. You can call a dog a basketball if you want to, but your conversations will be unduly complicated. Language conventions aren’t generally a matter of “rights” but of mutual comprehension.
The simple fact that humans can’t change sex knocks down the whole house of cards. Rewrite the story truthfully and it turns back into “dog bites man” and deserved non-reporting. It would turn the question around and make people wonder why anyone would be in favour of boys being given access to girls’ changing rooms and toilet facilities. The only people in favour of that are those keen on violating female boundaries. Mustn’t have people thinking of those questions, which is what is always there under the guise of “trans rights.”
It’s just more projection, isn’t it. Trans activists accuse feminists of not caring about women at all, their true motivation is harming trans people (trans identified males particularly). Any concern for women is cynical camoflage, But hidden beneath all demands for “trans rights” there actually is contempt for women’s boundaries and a sinister desire to violate them.
You’d think that the media would be more careful with their words, because words are their stock in trade. To be caught lying is not good for a business whose product is supposed to be trustworthiness. If they squander their credibility for a worthless “cause,” what do they have left?
This is actually a huge part of the problem in talking about this issue. Most media are considered ‘balanced’ if they can actually cover ‘both sides’ of an issue; counting to three is beyond even the better outlets like NPR. This leads to the opposite of the forced teaming behind the “2SLGBTQ+” nonsense–gender-critical feminists agree with socio-religious conservatives (like the RCC) on pretty much only this one narrow point (and even then, for different reasons), but that still results in the media treating them as part of the same team.
What’s needed, somehow, is for one of those outlets to do a long-form interview with a gender-crit feminist, where they start with issues like abortion and equal pay, then diverge into trans issues, then back to things like household balance and so on (hell, you could even touch on non-explicitly-feminist issues like climate change, racial justice movements and the like). This would highlight that the argument is really occurring on different factions of leftist, rather than the usual left/right divide.