So now let’s read the Equality and Human Rights Commission guide.

Who this guide is for

This guide is for service providers (anyone who provides goods, facilities or services to the public) who are looking to establish and operate a separate or single-sex service.

There was a time when that mostly meant service providers who excluded women from men’s clubs and bars and gyms, which was not only sexist in itself but also an extreme barrier to women working in various professions and businesses where a lot of the networking and jockeying for position took place in…clubs and bars and gyms.

Now it doesn’t mean that any more, now it means service providers who exclude men from women’s toilets ffs. There’s precious little executive networking that happens in toilets; the only reason men want to invade women’s toilets is in aid of some form of spying or assault or both. It’s beyond maddening that we’re having to fight for the right to say no to men peering over the partitions at us.

Summary

The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex.

To establish a separate or single-sex service, you must show that you meet at least one of a number of statutory conditions (set out in this section of the guide) and that limiting the service on the basis of sex is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. You must then be able to show that your action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.

There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not.

It just makes me tired. We shouldn’t have to defend it. We shouldn’t be required to “show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.” Excluding men should just go on being the default. I don’t care how they “identify.” I just don’t. I can’t. They don’t care about how we prefer to pee away from men, so why should I care how they identify? They care only about themselves, so why should I care about them?

When considering how your service is provided to trans people, you must balance the impact on all service users and show that there is a sufficiently good reason for excluding trans people or limiting or modifying their access to the service.

In other words, women have to “balance” our rights with the purported rights of men who say they are women. I say it’s spinach and I say the hell with it.

Updating to add a very on the mark observation from Sastra.

Trans Twitter urges veto on…well, on following the law.

Likely to be found unlawful on judicial review…according to some people on Twitter.

Well but this one Twitter account says it’s likely to be found unlawful on judicial review, so surely that’s safe enough, isn’t it?

Lotta fans, at least.

Succinct, maybe, but is it true?

Yes ask Jolyon Maugham first, he knows everything.

On pronouns:

If it’s all well-intentioned then why should we not adopt the pronoun game as a universal custom? There are several reasons why I believe we should not: because it undermines self-confidence and resilience by asserting that one’s self-concept is rightly dependent upon external-validation, it endorses and encourages narcissistic behavior, and it creates a world of bizarre and unnecessary confusion for children around the topics of sex and gender. Put simply: it does more harm than good both to those it seeks to aid and everyone else.

Especially everyone else, and there are a lot more of us, and we’re not the ones making bizarre demands to change the language in order to “center” us.

Why are we not asking deeper questions about what is happening here? If some individuals are unhappy enough with their secondary sexual characteristics that they engage in a radical form of self-rejection through a spectrum of cosmetic and medical interventions, and require consistent affirmation from others in order to complete the illusion that their mental health will suffer… is pretending to see what they want us to see really helping them to become healthier and happier or is it merely an act of codependency which enables dysfunction and fosters fragility?

Good question. I suppose that’s why the issue has been (forcibly) made so political as opposed to psychological. If it’s political it’s about what everyone else does, and it can be enforced via bullying and expelling and firing. If it’s psychological it’s about what the “trans” person does, and there’s nothing to enforce on everyone else. Telling everyone else what to do is fun.

By teaching people to dictate how others speak about them in the third person, we are also coaching them to adopt narcissistic traits such as interpersonally exploitative behavior (I am using you as a mirror to reflect the image of myself I wish to see), entitlement (you owe it to me to affirm what I say), lack of empathy (I don’t care what you really think/feel), and arrogance (I demand that you bend to my will or I will say you are harming me).

Truth. I wish more people would point that out. This is where much of the confusion about “transphobia” comes in, I think. It’s not phobia of the trans part, it’s phobia of the narcissism and entitlement and arrogance.

The BBC puts it more sharply.

After a contentious approval session where scientists and government officials went through the report line by line, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now published its guidance on what the world can do to avoid an extremely dangerous future.

First, the bad news – even if all the policies to cut carbon that governments had put in place by the end of 2020 were fully implemented, the world will still warm by 3.2C this century.

This finding has drawn the ire of the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

I find it pretty annoying myself. I won’t be here for the worst of it, but that’s part of the problem, isn’t it, oldies remaining cheerful because it won’t bite us in the ass, at least not as hard as it will bite people who will still be alive in 2040, 2060, 2080. The people who could do something are the ones who won’t still be here, and the people who can’t do anything are the ones who will pay the price. It’s grossly unfair.

The good news is that this latest IPCC summary shows that [keeping temperatures down] can be done, in what Mr Guterres calls a “viable and financially sound manner”.

But keeping temperatures down will require massive changes to energy production, industry, transport, our consumption patterns and the way we treat nature.

And we’re not making those changes. We’re making some small ones around the edges, but we’re not even giving up luxuries like gigantic cruise ships.

There was Oradour-sur-Glane, there was My Lai, there was Srebrenica, there was Amritsar, and now there’s Bucha.

Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskiy has said that Russia’s public image is now one of torture and execution after the retreat of Russian forces in the town of Bucha led to the discovery of the killing of hundreds of civilians.
…

Ukrainian officials said the bodies of 410 civilians have been found in Kyiv-area towns that were recently retaken from Russian forces. Satellite images taken late last week show a 14-metre (45ft) mass grave in Bucha near the Church of St Andrew and Pyervozvannoho All Saints. Maxar, the company that took the pictures, said the first signs of excavation for a mass grave there were seen on 10 March, several weeks into the invasion.

Witnesses of alleged atrocities in Bucha told the Guardian that Russian soldiers had fired on men fleeing the town, and had killed civilians at will. Taras Schevchenko, 43, said Russian soldiers had refused to allow men to leave through a humanitarian corridor, instead shooting at them as they fled across an open field. Bodies, he said, were scattered on the pavements, with some of those killed having been “squashed by tanks … like animal skin rugs”.

…

Russia denied responsibility for the killing of civilians. Its defence ministry described the photos and videos from towns such as Bucha as “another staged performance by the Kyiv regime”, echoing a similar claim made after the bombing of a children’s and maternity hospital in Mariupol.

That’s what they all say.

As always, the word is that we can do it if we really get serious and hurry up, and the obvious problem is that we’re not going to.

The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of experts convened by the United Nations, warns that unless countries drastically accelerate efforts over the next few years to slash their emissions from coal, oil and natural gas, the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, will likely be out of reach by the end of this decade.

That’s the threshold beyond which scientists say the dangers of global warming — including worsening floods, droughts, wildfires and ecosystem collapse — grow considerably. 

And what goes along with worsening floods, droughts, wildfires and ecosystem collapse? Mass migrations, and resistance to mass migrations, and wars and genocides. In a world that’s already broken. It will be horrible. It will be Mariupol everywhere and Treblinka everywhere.

But the task is daunting: Holding warming to just 1.5 degrees Celsius would require nations to collectively reduce their planet-warming emissions roughly 43 percent by 2030 and to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere altogether by the early 2050s, the report found.

Yeah. Do we look as if we’re doing that? Do we look as if we’re going to be doing that starting today?

By contrast, current policies by governments are only expected to reduce global emissions by a few percentage points this decade. Last year, fossil fuel emissions worldwide rebounded to near-record highs after a brief dip as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

Governments probably can’t do anything about it without being overthrown and replaced by governments that will undo any doing.

The report, which was approved by 195 governments and lays out strategies that countries could pursue to halt global warming, comes as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused oil and gas prices to skyrocket, diverting political attention from climate change. In the United States and Europe, leaders are focused on shoring up domestic fossil fuel supplies to avoid painful price spikes and energy shortages, even if that means increasing emissions in the short term.

But of course there is no “short term.” There’s no short term in the sense that “we can keep on with the fossil fuels for just this one short term and then we’ll immediately slash them by 43 percent and the planet will be saved.” How long would that short term be exactly? How would we know? What would be different such that an immediate switch to using roughly half of what we’ve been using would be quick and painless? Don’t make us laugh. It’s not possible. Animals don’t evolve to take the long view, not even as long as the next eight years. When heating costs double from one month to the next it’s game over.

But even if that goal becomes unattainable, scientists said, it will still be worthwhile for countries to slash emissions as quickly as possible to prevent as much warming as they can. Every additional rise in global temperatures increases the perils that people face around the world, such as water scarcity, malnutrition and life-threatening heat waves, the U.N. panel has found.

And what goes with them: mass migrations, wars, genocides. I think the panels and journalists should include that part, even though it’s not as trackable as water scarcity and the rest.

Joan Smith on Twitter v Rowling:

One of the biggest lies about the conflict between feminists and trans activists is that ‘the debate is toxic on both sides’. It’s trotted out in just about every article that takes a supposedly neutral position, even though the authors never produce any evidence for this slur on women who’ve never threatened anyone.

OR called anyone the equivalent of “cunt” and the rest of it.

Team Trans on the other hand is not so reasonable.

JK Rowling is a favourite target and now a music video has emerged in which trans campaigner Faye ‘Trust Fund Ozu’ addresses the author with the chilling words ‘hope you fit in a hearse’. The video also features vocals about ‘killing TERFS’.

JKR tweeted about it in a jokey vein, but the rest of us get to skip the jokey part.

When the actor James Dreyfus reported the post to Twitter, the social media platform failed to uphold his complaint. Even more bizarrely, it claimed that the alleged death threat hadn’t ‘broken its safety policies’. It’s a colossal piece of cheek from a platform that regularly hands out suspensions to women who state facts, such as saying trans women are not biological women, or ‘misgender’ trans athletes like Lia Thomas. 

Dreyfus made exactly this point in his response: ‘So, death threats = Good. Saying “women are women” = Bad. Congratulations, Twitter Support. You’ve hit rock bottom. Seek help.’ He’s right, of course, and it’s clear that platforms like Twitter are penalising gender-critical women for what is, since Maya Forstater’s successful appeal, protected speech.

I can add a piece to the puzzle here, because I too reported that tweet and in my case Twitter agreed.

I don’t know why I got a different response – maybe we ticked different boxes. At any rate there’s still a pattern of turning a blind eye to threats and verbal abuse for This One Set of Special People.

What this episode tells us, however, is not just that we are dealing with entitled, narcissistic individuals. We already knew that. It’s becoming clear that there has been a collective decision that trans people are the most vulnerable group in society, regardless of what the statistics tell us, and anyone who speaks for them (or claims to do so) is endowed with the same mantle of victimhood. 

Hence they’re given a free pass even if they are gloating about the imagined death of a children’s author or clutching a baseball bat and threatening to murder feminists. I’ve seen it so often that I’m more shocked by the widespread refusal to acknowledge the hateful reality than the threats, which have been documented on many occasions.

Same. People I used to consider friends not only buy into the absurd dogma but also shrug off threats and insults that used to infuriate them when aimed at women or atheists or argumentative bloggers.

Maybe it’s the name.

In October, Donald Trump announced he was planning to launch a revolutionary technology company.

“I created Truth Social… to stand up to the tyranny of big tech,” he said.

By which he meant a Twitter clone that would let him tell any lies and scream any insults he wanted to.

The app launched on Presidents’ Day, 21 February, but six weeks later is beset by problems. A waiting list of nearly 1.5 million are unable to use it.

Truth Social looks a lot like Twitter, which banned Mr Trump from posting on the platform after a mob of his supporters attacked the Capitol on 6 January, 2021. Twitter contended that Donald Trump, by making false claims the presidential election had been “stolen”, had incited violence. He was banned for life on 8 January, 2021.

Truth Social might look like Twitter, but it isn’t available on Android phones, web browsers or, apparently, to most people outside the US.

“It’s been a disaster,” Joshua Tucker, director of NYU’s Center for Social Media and Politics, said.

And that’s a good thing.

Hahahahahahaha I love it when that happens.

It happened to me once. I was arguing with some guy in comments at Crooked Timber (this was a long time ago) and he told me I would benefit from reading this amusing satirical guide to rhetoric on a website called Butterflies and Wheels. That was fun.

Hey what’s the deal with people having names that are spelled funny? Huh? What are they trying to do? Are they crazy or something?

Three days into his first term as a Republican congressman, Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer, then just 33, pulled on a smoke hood and fled the Capitol as rioters invaded the House chamber on January 6. He later voted to certify the election results and ended up being one of nine Republicans to vote to impeach President Donald Trump for his role in inciting the insurrection. Since then, Meijer has suffered death threats, a Trump-endorsed primary challenge, and now the indignity of having Trump make fun of his last name at a political rally in his home state.

Well. Be fair. “Meijer” – did you ever? I mean, really.

Last night, Trump appeared at a sports hall outside Detroit to promote the candidacy of a couple of low-level Republican candidates for state attorney general and secretary of state. As is often the case when he shows up to help another candidate, Trump spent most of the time talking about himself and insulting one of his enemies, in this case, fellow Republican Meijer. 

Talking about himself and insulting other people – sums him up.

“A guy who spells his name `M-E-I-J-E-R’ but they pronounce it `MY-er,’” Trump said. “The hell kind of a spelling is that? `MY-er.’ I said: `How the hell do you pronounce this guy’s name?’”

“Nobody knows him,” Trump said of Meijer. “He’s done nothing in Washington. I said `How do you pronounce his name? Is it ‘MAY-jer? MY-jer?’ They said it’s `MY-er.’ How the hell do you get `MY-er’ out of it?”

Same way you get “Yohan” out of “Johan” – you learn that several languages, like for instance Dutch and Swedish and (cough) German, pronounce J the way Anglophones pronounce Y.

But that won’t do, because that’s foreign. Foreign means bad.

The congressman’s last name is Dutch, and there’s a decent sized Dutch-American community in Western Michigan that tends to vote conservative Republican—a constituency Trump’s advisors apparently didn’t bother to brief him on. Meijer is also a household name in Michigan that adorns a beloved local chain of supermarkets that have, among other things, given away millions of dollars worth of free prescription drugs to treat diabetes and heart disease, as well as antibiotics and prenatal vitamins, the sort of meaningful philanthropy the Trump family has never even contemplated. 

Another fun fact: Trump’s grandfather immigrated to the US from Germany.

Speaking of the American right and how it’s not accurate or fair to translate it to “conservatives,” take just this one item from Trump’s Event yesterday:

Representative Lisa McClain, a Michigan Republican, claimed on Saturday that former President Donald Trump “caught” former Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S.

McClain, who first entered Congress during the 2020 election with Trump’s endorsement, made the comment as she spoke ahead of the former president during a rally in Washington Township, Michigan. The GOP congresswoman lamented how she and many others view the country to be worse off under President Joe Biden than it was under Trump.

“While President Trump was in office, we didn’t have a war and I think he made three peace treaties,” McClain said during her speech. “Caught Osama bin Laden and Soleimani, al-Baghdadi. And this president is weak. And I’ll tell you weakness breeds aggression. We need strength.”

Yes I remember that night. I remember casually turning on the tv to find all the networks breathlessly telling us to stand by for news from the White House. I remember standing by, and watching crowds gather to stand by, and then Obama walking to the podium to tell us that Donald Trump had caught Osama bin Laden.

The Times article on Emily Bridges part 3:

The current version of the article has been amended. Fair Play for Women pointed out an error 9 hours ago.

That sentence has been deleted.

He or an editor must have changed it. He’s grumpy about it though.

It…wasn’t shouty.

Anyway. Section 195.

Section 195 ftw.

The Times article on Emily Bridges part 2:

It was considered a short-term issue, one that the UCI would soon process, but senior figures in the sport believe the organisation has it within its power to continue excluding Bridges under regulations updated in 2020.

While British Cycling rules demand only that a transgender cyclist falls below a set testosterone threshold for a period of 12 months — indeed Bridges has been registered for the women’s events by the national governing body for the Nations Cup in Glasgow later this month — the UCI rules go further by referencing the need to “preserve the safety, fairness and integrity of the sport, for the benefit of all of its participants and stakeholders” within specific eligibility regulations for transgender athletes.

In other words the UCI rules actually take women into account.

The regulations cite the need to “protect the health and safety of participants” and “guarantee fair and meaningful competition that displays and rewards the fundamental values and meaning of the sport”. They add that the UCI wants “its athletes to be incentivised to make the huge commitments required to excel in the sport”, and “does not want to risk discouraging those aspirations by permitting competition that is not fair and meaningful”.

Which, of course, letting male-bodied people compete against women would do.

Perhaps most crucially, the regulations identify “the significant advantages in size, strength and power enjoyed (on average) by men over women from puberty onwards, due in large part to much higher levels of androgenic hormones, and the impact that such advantages can have on sporting performance, it is necessary to have separate competition categories for males and females”.

The regulations are open to interpretation, of course, and may well be challenged by transgender athletes.

Yes, and it’s “open to interpretation” whether men have physical advantages over women or not.

The Times reports:

The transgender cyclist prevented from participating in a national track event this weekend could be the subject of an indefinite ban under rules introduced by the Union Cycliste Internationale, the world governing body.

That’s a slightly misleading paragraph if you don’t already know the story. Why would anyone ban a cyclist from an event just because the cyclist is transgender?!! What shocking bigotry!

In other words Matt Lawton, Chief Sports Correspondent for the Times, buried the lede.

It’s not a “transgender cyclist” who was “prevented from participating in a national track event,” it’s a male cyclist who was prevented from participating in a women’s national track event. Omitting the sex from both the cyclist and the event is a misleading way of reporting this subject. Journalism should stop doing that.

Paula Radcliffe joins in:

Margaret Atwood won the Hitchens prize. The Atlantic shares her speech, in which she pointed out an important distinction:

I expect Hitch would join me in a distinction I have been making lately: that between belief and truth. It’s a comment on our special times that I’d even feel I have to make this distinction. A belief cannot be either proved or disproved. If you wish to believe that invisible flower spirits are causing your string beans to grow, there is no point in my trying to dissuade you, because these entities are invisible and immaterial. Something proposed as a truth can, however, be put to the test. In recent years, people have confused beliefs with truths. From this confusion have come ideologies and dogmas—the characteristic of a dogma being that it’s proposed as an absolute truth and cannot be disputed, and if you try disputing it, you’ll be burned as a heretic.

There’s also a distinction between feeling or “feeling like” and truth. Claims to “feel like” X also can’t be proved or disproved, and they also don’t mean very much.

Originally a comment by G on Captured.

The American right’s weaponized anti-trans politics — which genuinely is about generating and capitalizing on fear and hatred, not about protecting children, and even more clearly not about opposition to patriarchy and misogyny — practically guarantees that what passes for the left in the U.S. will embrace trans rights in the most knee-jerk and thought-free manner possible. And, I strongly suspect, there are some strategists on the right who fully realize this, and hope it will hurt the left with an American voting public that is, on average, distinctly uncomfortable with gender non-conformity in all forms.

This is part of an established historical pattern: When thoughtful feminist criticism of a social practice happens to align with what religious conservatives disapprove of on a completely different basis, the political left has turned on feminists — or worse, has insisted (with sadly high degrees of success) that feminism disfigure itself to embrace the oppression of women. (And, I should note, the ACLU has consistently been a leader in throwing feminists under the first passing bus in this way.) It happened with feminist criticism of pornography and the sex industry, which gave us various versions of “sex positive feminism” that is hardly recognizable as feminism at all. And it’s happening again with trans politics. The thought-stopping slogan “Sex work is work” even has exactly the same sentence structure as “Trans women are women” — and comes with the same assumption and insistence that anyone who dares disagree cannot have any actual reasonable concerns or objections (no matter how clearly they state them), but must be indistinguishable from a Bible-thumping bigot.

Janice Turner on the theft of women’s sport:

Inclusion in sport matters but not more than the truth. In recent weeks I’ve read thousands of words justifying why the American trans swimmer Lia Thomas, 22, should compete in the women’s NCAA college games. Thomas was compared with black women or lesbian athletes who were also judged “unwomanly”. It was argued that sex categories in sport are out of step with “evolving science”. So much sophistry. The simple, inescapable fact is that as a man Thomas barely made the top 500 and never qualified for the NCAAs but as a woman came 1st, 5th and 8th.

Female swimmers were not asked for their views.

Silence was also imposed on British elite female cyclists, who in the national omnium championships tomorrow were due to race the trans woman Emily Bridges, 21, a junior champion who until just weeks ago raced as a man. British Cycling demands that members “must accept all participants in the gender they present” or face sanctions. The panel creating these rules includes the trans woman Philippa York, who in The Times accused Thomas’s female teammates of lying about their changing room distress.

Sisterhood!

No cyclist, not even Dame Laura Kenny, our greatest woman Olympian, dared speak out. Only when team rage quietly boiled into a threatened boycott did UCI, cycling’s international governing body, intervene. Bridges was dropped on a technicality from the omnium yet may still race as a woman at the Commonwealth Games. British Cycling’s statement regretted Bridges’s disappointment, noted the imperative of trans inclusion, but said not a word about female justice.

Trans women are new and interesting. Women are just yawn your sister or mother or math teacher. Or even you, but you still prefer people newer and more interesting than women. (See: Christa Peterson, Kate Mann, Rebecca Solnit, Sally Hines…)

Women’s sports are hard-won and, as Seb Coe observed, very fragile. The FA banned women’s football from its grounds from 1921 until 1971. Men’s cycling began with the modern Olympiad in 1896: women’s cycling was added in 1984. Now, after only 38 years, we must move aside, surrender our places, medals, records and glory to mediocre males or those like 44-year-old weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, who fancied a retirement plan. We must allow our races to be cherry-picked by those like Thomas who coaches say threw her second two events to dampen outcry about initial victory.

It’s our own fault for being so boring.

Is everyone drunk?

Family doctors are to be paid for prescribing hormones to transgender patients, in the first scheme of its kind in the UK.

I don’t think family doctors work for free in the UK, so this “being paid” seems to amount to a sweetener for one particular kind of prescription. Kind of like a bribe. Is that really a good idea?

Under the programme, which was launched yesterday, GPs in Sussex will get £178 a year for every adult to whom they prescribe “cross sex hormone therapy”. They will also be able to claim an extra £91 a year for providing an annual health check to a transgender, non-binary or intersex (TNBI) patient.

“Extra” – so the £178 and the £91 are sweeteners. Bribes.

The scheme, which also requires staff to take training in transgender healthcare, is aimed at reducing the high rates of long-term physical and mental health problems in TNBI patients and improve their low levels of satisfaction with NHS care. Trans rights campaigners welcomed the programme. Patients referred to gender identity clinics (GICs) face waits of years, after referrals soared 240 per cent in five years.

So if all the kids were jumping off roofs would you give ladder-makers £178 a year for every kid who jumped? Maybe instead everyone should be pausing to ask why referrals have soared 240 per cent in five years. Social contagion anyone?

Trans men may be given hormones, such as testosterone, to help with masculinisation while trans women get hormones such as oestrogen to help with feminisation.

Let’s all masculinize or feminize; it sounds like such fun, and so healthy too.

To receive payments, participating surgeries are required to compile a register of anyone considered to be TNBI. The scheme will initially run for three years across Brighton and Hove, East Sussex and West Sussex. Participating GPs must undertake two and a half hours of online training.

Ooooooh two and a half hours, that’s more than enough.

Georgia Senate passes bill that limits how schools can teach about race.

House Bill 1084, the “Protect Students First Act”, was approved by the Georgia senate. The measure requires local school boards and administrators to ban discrimination on the “basis of race” by limiting how race can be discussed in classrooms.

Under the bill, discussion topics that would be banned include teaching that “one race is inherently superior to another race” or that the US is “fundamentally racist”, reported CNN.

“We can teach US history, the good, the bad and the ugly, without dividing children along racial lines,” said the Georgia senate president pro tem, Butch Miller, of the bill that passed 32-21.

Can we though? Maybe it’s not actually that easy.

Here’s the bill itself.

Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to education, is amended in

23 Article 1 of Chapter 1, relating to general provisions, by adding a new Code section to read

24 as follows:

“20-1-11.
26 (a) As used in this Code section, the term:
27 (1) ‘Divisive concepts’ means any of the following concepts, including views espousing
28 such concepts:
29 (A) One race is inherently superior to another race;
30 (B) The United States of America is fundamentally racist;
31 (C) An individual, by virtue of his or her race, is inherently or consciously racist or
32 oppressive toward individuals of other races;
33 (D) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely
34 or partly because of his or her race;
35 (E) An individual’s moral character is inherently determined by his or her race;
36 (F) An individual, by virtue of his or her race, bears individual responsibility for
37 actions committed in the past by other individuals of the same race;
38 (G) An individual should feel anguish or any other form of psychological distress
39 because of his or her race;

And so on. You can see what they’re hinting at. Don’t dig too deep. Don’t say the whole problem was not solved when the Civil War ended or when Booker T. Washington founded Tuskegee or when MLK gave the “I have a dream” speech or when Obama was elected. Don’t teach the truth about the defeat of Reconstruction. Don’t talk about prison plantations. Don’t talk about Jim Crow laws. Don’t talk about voting rights. Don’t talk about the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Don’t talk about mass incarceration and what color most of the mass is. Don’t talk about redlining. Don’t talk about the GI Bill. See appendix for several thousand more examples.

(3) ‘Race scapegoating’ means assigning fault or blame to a race, or to an individual of

49 a particular race because of his or her race. Such term includes, but is not limited to, any

50 claim that an individual of a particular race, consciously and by virtue of his or her race,

51 is inherently racist or is inherently inclined to oppress individuals of other races.

52 (4) ‘Race stereotyping’ means ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes,

53 status, or beliefs to an individual because of his or her race.

It’s cute, that one, because it’s crafted to sound like anti-racism but of course the point is to shut down anti-racism.