Virginia Tech Computer Policy Banning “Intimidation, Harassment, and Unwarranted Annoyance” Is Unconstitutionally Vague and Overbroad

From Speech First, Inc. v. Sands, decided Tuesday by Chief District Judge Michael Urbanski (W.D. Va.):

The [Virginia Tech] computer policy’s prohibition on “intimidation, harassment, and unwarranted annoyance” is clearly vague and overbroad. It fails to define or otherwise cabin the application of any of these terms. Its vague prohibition on “unwarranted annoyance” is particularly troubling, asking students to guess what kinds of annoyance may be warranted or not. Given its text and active—albeit rare—enforcement, there is “a realistic danger that the [policy] itself will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections….” … [A] student of ordinary intelligence “reading the policy would have no way of knowing whether his or her conduct was proscribed, and the policy creates a strong risk that it could sweep in conduct that is protected under the First Amendment.” Speech First is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to this provision of the computer policy….

The court denied a preliminary injunction against

  1. the university’s Bias Response Team, on the grounds that it “lacks any authority to discipline or otherwise punish students for anything” and thus doesn’t have sufficient coercive power to trigger the First Amendment,
  2. the university’s policy restricting “harassing” speech, on the grounds that the challengers’ planned speech wouldn’t fall within that policy in any event, and
  3. the policy require groups to reserve space before leafletting or gathering petition signatures, on the grounds that “whether Virginia Tech’s time, place, and manner restrictions are reasonable as a matter of law” “is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires a more developed record, perhaps including information about the demands on reservable spaces by RSOs and the availability of alternatives for students who are not members of RSOs.”

On items 1 and 2, the court largely agreed with Judge Helene White’s dissent as to a similar policy in Speech First, Inc. v. Schlissel (6th Cir. 2019).

Source link

Texas governor signs bill banning ‘abortion inducing drugs’ after seven weeks of pregnancy

It’s official: Joe Biden has announced that his Administration will be forcing COVID vaccinations on nearly 1/3rd of American citizens, blatantly disregarding the personal objections of millions of people and moving America ever closer towards a medical dictatorship.

We cannot stand for this unprecedented overreach, and we will not submit to Biden’s tyrannical public coercion efforts.

Please SIGN this urgent petition informing the President that you will NOT comply with these unconstitutional vaccine mandate orders issued by the Biden Administration, and that elected officials should act in their capacity to block these intrusive demands.

On Thursday, September 9th, Joe Biden announced the latest round of federal orders meant to further coerce large swaths of the public into getting the COVID vaccine — many against their will.

While the legal standing of these measures is, at best, dubious, the Biden Administration appears more ready than ever to gut our individual rights and practically erase medical autonomy in our country.

This latest escalation in overreach was announced via a televised speech in which Biden outlined a new “six-point plan” that includes far more than just six avenues to achieve mass medical compliance.

Among the most egregious new federal mandates are the following:

  • A requirement that all private businesses employing more than 100 people mandate their workers get the Covid-19 vaccine or submit to weekly testing (to be implemented by way of a new Department of Labor rule)
  • A requirement that all federal employees and federal contractors get the COVID vaccine
  • A requirement that all healthcare workers in facilities that receive reimbursement from Medicare and/or Medicaid (an estimated 17 million) get the Covid-19 vaccine without an alternative testing option
  • A requirement that all Head Start teachers get the COVID vaccine
  • A federal effort to lobby states to implement vaccine mandates for all school employees, and require regular testing of all students and school staff
  • A federal effort to lobby entertainment venues to require proof of vaccination or testing in order to grant entry to the public
  • A continuation of mask mandates on all federal properties and during interstate travel (i.e. planes, trains, buses)

All in all, these new vaccine mandates, which will go into effect within the coming weeks, will affect an estimated 100 million American workers — 2/3rds of the entire workforce!

And, according to an administration official, violations of these unconstitutional requirements could result in fines of up to $14,000.

While this is clearly a political ploy on the part of the Joe Biden and his team of power-hungry Washington insiders to shift the focus from their disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the American public knows better: After nearly a year and a half’s worth of arbitrary, ever-changing, and unconstitutional government mandates in response to the COVID outbreak, it was always a given that the Biden Administration would ramp things up even further when it behooved them.

And now, it would seem that time has officially come.

“This is not about freedom or personal choice,” Biden uttered in his remarks, confirming his administration’s blatant dismissal of all Americans’ right(s) to accept or decline the experimental Covid-19 vaccine.

This is a stunning reversal from Biden’s declaration last December that “I don’t think [the vaccine] should be mandatory, I wouldn’t demand it to be mandatory.”

In fact, Biden even confirmed his intention to flout states’ rights in the process, warning that “If these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way.”

These are not the words of an “empathetic” leader; these are the words of an aspiring dictator. And, for the time being, the only way to stop Joe Biden’s tyranny is through mass noncompliance.

As we’ve said from the beginning, science, basic logic, and common sense should dictate policy regarding COVID and the Delta variant.

But Joe Biden and the federal government have long abandoned those principles throughout this crisis, culminating into this disturbing yet inevitable flurry of intrusive vaccine mandates that use people’s jobs, individual autonomy, and livelihood as leverage.

This assault on our individual rights, private businesses, and American workers cannot be tolerated, and the easiest way to combat these unlawful orders is to just say NO.

Please SIGN and SHARE this most important petition letting Joe Biden know that you will NOT comply with the unconstitutional medical demands being made by this administration, and that action should be taken to block any intrusive action against working Americans and private employers.

Thank you!


‘Biden announces vaccine requirements for private businesses, impacting tens of millions of Americans’:

Source link

The Biden Administration Is Still Banning White Farmers From Federal Aid

President Biden’s farm loan forgiveness program is unconstitutional, discriminating against white farmers. One court case may bring its end.

President Biden’s farm loan forgiveness program is outrageously unconstitutional. It is a law that would selectively pay off the loans of farmers based on race. A non-white farmer would see his entire loan paid off. His neighbor, who is white, would not qualify for the program. It was predictably challenged in court with predictable results.

Every court to reach the question has issued a preliminary injunction, thus barely any money got out the door before it got halted. You may have thought it was over, but it’s not.

After taking an uninterrupted string of losses in defending the program’s racial preferences, the government has changed tactics. It has argued that it is wasteful and unfair to force it, the United States of America represented by the Department of Justice (the world’s largest law office), to have to defend its unconstitutional program in multiple places at one time. Just remember this the next time you need an extension on your taxes.

Largely, this change in tactics has worked. In case after case, courts have stayed their cases. Those nationwide injunctions you may have read about? They are pretty much now moot or dissolved outright. The government staved off a much-needed reckoning.

A Standout Case

Under the program, which was billed as coronavirus relief, non-white farmers with loans from the Department of Agriculture would get their loans forgiven in full, plus an extra 20 percent on top. It doesn’t even matter if the farmer was an actual victim of discrimination or had received previous settlement awards for being a victim of discrimination, or if the farm was devastated by COVID lockdowns. The program makes race the most important characteristic.

In only one case in the country did a judge outright reject the government’s stay request, that of Rob Holman, a Tennessee farmer who is unfortunately ineligible for the program because he is white. The government doesn’t get to complain about being overwhelmed by pro bono law firms, then put Holman’s case on the shelf for years while it chooses where and how it would like to litigate. The government got all of its other stays, although one additional request to stay is still pending in Florida. Holman’s case will likely be heard this year, assuming the government’s ongoing bid for delay does not succeed.

Holman is represented by  Southeastern Legal Foundation and Mountain States Legal. Our client is trying to stand up to the most powerful government on Earth. He is a fourth-generation farmer in Tennessee. Making his loan payments hasn’t always been easy, but Holman has always made those payments and kept his farm afloat. The government arbitrarily decided to forgive the loans of his competitors, who are now free to make upgrades to their farm equipment that Holman cannot. That’s not fair, and it is only through the help of two public interest law firms that Holman is able to try to stop it.

Evidence for Systemic Racism

Systemic inequitable treatment” is how the government justifies its race-preference for farm loan forgiveness. We have heard a great deal about “systemic racism.” It supposedly pervades America’s past and infects everything today.

“Systemic racism” got a hard look when the government was taken to court in June. Courts demand evidence, after all. It’s a different game from, say, Twitter or Congress. You actually have to prove what you say. The bigger the claim, the more powerful evidence the courts expect. If America is, and has always been, racist, it ought to be pretty easy to prove.

When the government flipped its cards over, it had nothing. They offered a mountain of evidence, citing every historical wrong going back centuries. But the judge only went on to agree (understating things a bit) that the government’s facts “are less useful than they may appear to be.” Indeed. The judge then stopped the program across all 50 states.

Systemic racism in 2021 has become this administration’s boogeyman. They summon it forth every time they need to shake loose a few trillion dollars from the American taxpayer. Why does the government have such trouble proving that the monster exists?

The courts are sick of seeing race-first government programs justified by flimsy claims that America is systematically racist. In another recent case having to do with restaurant loans — again prioritized based on skin color — the court faulted the government because it could “not identify specific incidents of past discrimination.”

When you parse things further, the whole business of figuring out which races have been sufficiently victimized gets pretty sordid pretty fast: “preferences for Pakistanis but not Afghans; Japanese but not Iraqis; Hispanics but not Middle Easterners.” Can you imagine writing this law? It feels gross just to read about it. And some of us have noticed that the government isn’t always … very good at its job. Do you really want to the talent that was passed over by Veterans Affairs to be in charge of deciding which races are “socially disadvantaged”?

Let’s Not License More Discrimination

Now, with all that said, no one is saying that the Department of Agriculture has always been a beacon of equality. It has not. But under the Pigford settlements in 1999, the U.S. taxpayer has already paid off more than $2.3 billion to right the wrongs committed by the department against black farmers. Now those same people at the Agriculture Department are asking us for a license to engage in more discrimination? No way.

The solution to racism should never be more racism. Nor should we allow an agency with a troubling history of racial discrimination to engage in more racial discrimination.

We should stop playing along with this never-ending game of government extortion, where the government’s past racism gives it a pass for more racism. We need a different approach, one spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts: equality. Stop treating people differently based on the color of their skin. That’s it.

Braden Boucek is director of litigation for Southeastern Legal Foundation, a national constitutional public interest law firm founded in 1976 that has appeared regularly before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source link

FLASHBACK: Biden, Buttigieg and Harris supported banning sale of gas and diesel vehicles in U.S.

President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg supported a federal ban on the sale of gas and diesel vehicles in the U.S. when competing for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

New York state announced a ban on the sale of most gas and diesel vehicles by 2035. California Gov. Gavin Newson previously announced a similar state government ban.

As a candidate in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Buttigieg supported a federal ban on the sale of gas and diesel vehicles in the U.S. by 2035.

Harris proposed requiring every vehicle sold in the U.S. to be “zero-emissions” vehicles by 2035. Biden had a similar plan that would take effect by an unspecified date.

Source link

Biden plan empowers Arizona schools to flout state law banning mask mandates

President Joe Biden’s latest plan to combat the spread of COVID-19 will take the teeth out of an Arizona law that prohibits mask and vaccination mandates.

The president’s plan, which orders any private company that employs 100 or more people to vaccinate their employees by mid-January or face fines, includes new tax dollars to reimburse any school district that faces a monetary punishment for implementing a mask mandate.

“If these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way,” Biden said Thursday.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law a measure that banned any type of mask mandate in the state’s schools and also forbade any type of vaccination requirements as a condition of access or patronizing most businesses.

Ducey announced a $163 million increase in funding for public schools in August to be disbursed on a per-pupil basis but only if schools were following state laws and allowing students to attend class without a mask.

Details of Biden’s announcement aren’t finalized but Ducey and others have vowed to challenge the president’s edicts.

“The president said yesterday that he will use his powers to get Republican governors ‘out of the way,’ ” Ducey said Friday in a statement. “No, Mr. President, the American people need you to get a grip.”

More than 40 Arizona schools have chosen to ignore the state mask mandate ban. Even though it goes into effect later this month, lawmakers included a retroactive provision in the state budget that covered the beginning of the school year.

A spokesman for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Kathy Hoffman said Friday the Arizona Department of Education is reviewing Biden’s order with state and federal partners.

Biden said last month schools facing state funding cuts could use funds from the American Rescue Plan Act to supplant that money.

A survey paid for by the Arizona Public Health Association, whose director is a frequent critic of Ducey, and the Arizona School Boards Association conducted Aug. 30-Aug. 31 found 57% of those polled agreed that “individuals should wear masks while in local government, public schools and charter schools.”

Source link

Florida can continue with banning mask mandate: appeals court

Florida’s ban on mask mandates is back on — for now. 

A Sunshine State appeals court ruled Friday that a lower judge should not have halted enforcement of the mandate moratorium, thereby restoring Gov. Ron DeSantis’ push to punish school districts who enforce face coverings.

“1st District Court of Appeals just granted the State of Florida’s request to reinstate the stay — meaning, the rule requiring ALL Florida school districts to protect parents’ rights to make choices about masking kids is BACK in effect!” DeSantis’ spokesperson Christina Pushaw wrote in a tweet

The decision from the First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee means the state can impose financial penalties, such as docking salaries of local school board members, on the 13 school districts that are pushing ahead with a mask mandate. 

The state’s governor has argued his Parents BIll of Rights law was created so that parents are given the ability to choose whether or not their children should wear a mask while in class — not school officials. 

School districts that do require face coverings allow students to opt-out, but only for medical reasons, not parental choice. 

Gov. Ron DeSantis claims Florida parents should dictate whether their children should wear masks in school.
REUTERS/Joe Skipper/File

Charles Gallagher, who’s representing a group of parents challenging the law, wrote on Twitter he is “disappointed” by the appeals court decision.  

“With a stay in place, students, parents and teachers are back in harm’s way,” Gallagher wrote. 

The on-again, off-again legal battle comes from a suit Gallagher and other attorneys filed on behalf of parents who are arguing the governor doesn’t have the authority to ban mask mandates. 

On August 27, Leon County Circuit Judge John C. Cooper agreed and then on Wednesday, lifted a stay that prevented the ruling from taking effect — a decision the appeals court then reversed on Friday. 

“We have serious doubts about standing, jurisdiction, and other threshold matters,” the judges wrote in the one-page decision. 

“Given the presumption against vacating the automatic stay, the stay should have been left in place pending appellate review.”

With Post wires

Source link

Texas Gov. Abbott signs law banning Big Tech companies from censoring users ‘based on their political viewpoints’

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law Thursday barring social media companies from wrongfully censoring users “based on their political beliefs.”

The new legislation aims to hold Big Tech platforms accountable in an age when many large platforms increasingly use their status as private companies to silence conservative voices without consequence.

What are the details?

The legislation, House Bill 20, specifically prevents social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users — such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube — from blocking, banning, removing, deplatforming, demonetizing, restrict, or otherwise deny equal access to users based on their viewpoints.

The law also requires that those companies produce regular reports showing the content they removed, create mechanisms for users to file complaints, and disclose their procedures for content regulation.

The new law empowers users to sue the platforms over any censorship violations and also enables the state’s attorney general to file lawsuits on behalf of users.

“We will always defend the freedom of speech in Texas, which is why I am proud to sign House Bill 20 into law to protect First Amendment rights in the Lone Star State,” Abbott said in a statement after signing the legislation.

“Social media websites have become our modern-day public square,” he added. “They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely — but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas. That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas.”

What else?

The measure is the latest effort by Republicans to curb censorship of conservatives online, which has been going on for years but seemed to reach a boiling point during the 2020 election season.

The issue garnered national attention in the lead-up to the election, when multiple Big Tech platforms censored a bombshell New York Post story involving potentially damaging information about President Joe Biden found on a laptop belonging to his son, Hunter.

Then, after the election, and immediately following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, those same social media companies made the unprecedented move to ban former President Trump, then a sitting president, from their platforms.

Source link

Biden DOJ launches attack on Texas ‘heartbeat’ bill banning abortion after 6 weeks

Just days after Texas passed a historic “heartbeat” bill making abortion illegal after a baby’s heartbeat is detectable, Biden’s Department of Justice announced it is fighting back against the pro-life law.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appeared before the press on Thursday to announce that the DOJ will be suing the state of Texas, claiming that this new law was “a scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States,” according to Texas Tribune.

The law, which bans abortion after six weeks gestation, went into effect on September 1 after the governor signed it earlier this year.

The bill allows for women to get chemical abortions by a pill, or “in-clinic” abortions up until the heartbeat of the baby is detected. After that point, abortion is completely illegal.

What makes the legislation unique compared to similar versions passed in other states is that Texans will now be able to report anyone who is an accessory to abortion, such as the doctor performing it, or even the Uber driver giving the ride to the woman getting the said abortion, according to Texas Tribune.

But this does not mean that abortion is criminalized for the mother obtaining one; only the ones aiding her in getting the abortion.

Many clinics have reportedly already permanently closed or canceled abortion appointments due to fear of getting shut down by the government or turned in by a civilian.

Arguing that the law must be stopped, Garland said, “If it prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas, by other states, and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents.”

The Texas law, however, does give exceptions to certain circumstances: If the mother has been raped, or if there is a life-threatening emergency. The bill, according to Human Coalition Action’s Chelsey Youman, will save over “50,000 lives a year,” she told Texas Tribune.

In 2019 alone, Texas performed over 56,000 abortions. Texas Republicans hope that the new law will drastically decrease that number and save thousands of babies’ lives.

Source link

California Recall: Larry Elder Open to Banning Critical Race Theory in Public Schools

An anti-critical race theory sign is held at a Loudon County School board meeting in Ashburn, Va., June 22, 2021. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

Larry Elder, the conservative radio host turned leading GOP candidate in the California gubernatorial recall race, said Wednesday that he would consider backing legislation prohibiting the teaching of critical race theory in public schools.

An African-American, Elder suggested to Fox News that the increasingly racialized curricula might warrant state intervention and potentially a law banning such concepts.

“My preference is for local school boards to decide what the curriculum is, but I think this is so bad and so insulting that I would look into some legislation like that,” the Republican frontrunner said.

Elder said that school choice could ameliorate the problem by giving parents and their children the freedom to escape a politicized curriculum and enroll in an alternative institution.

Parents need “an option where they can send their kids to a school that teaches this kind of nonsense and give them an option to put their kid in another school that doesn’t teach that. That’s my preference,” he affirmed.

Aside from the free market solution of school choice, however, Elder told Fox News he believes the critical race theory framework is fundamentally flawed, as it “teaches little white boys and girls that they are oppressors and little black boys and girls that they are eternal victims.”

“I submit to you that systemic racism is not the problem and critical race theory and reparations are not the answer,” he added.

In recent months, the GOP has debated whether Republican governors and state lawmakers have the authority to ban critical race theory in public schools. While governors such as Florida’s Ron DeSantis and Texas’s Greg Abbot seized the opportunity to sign legislation or executive orders forbidding it, other Republican figures have said they want to defer power to local school boards to make substantive decisions on curricula.

While Elder has emerged as the GOP favorite to oust Newsom in the upcoming recall election, recent polling indicates that about 53 percent of voters would select “no” on the ballot to keep Newsom in office, while 42.7 percent would vote to remove him. If a majority of voters select “yes,” Newsom will be unseated and whichever candidate earns a plurality of the vote on the ballot’s second question will be his replacement.

Since Elder has gained steam, Newsom’s team has ramped up campaign efforts, encouraging Democratic constituents to rally around the incumbent and discouraging competitors within the party from challenging him.

Send a tip to the news team at NR.

Source link

As the West Confuses Boys With Girls, China is Banning “Sissy Men” from TV

AP Images
Atmosphere at the LGBTQ Gay Pride Celebration Day Parade in New York City. 2021

While Hillary Clinton and her supporters would insist that “the future is female,” this apparently isn’t going to be the case in China (or in Afghanistan). In fact, after unveiling a program earlier this year designed to enhance teen boys’ masculinity, Beijing has announced that broadcasters must “resolutely put an end to [showcasing] sissy men and other abnormal esthetics” on television.  

As the South China Morning Post reports:

China’s top media regulator has announced a boycott of what it called “sissy idols”, among other new guidelines, during an ongoing “clean up” of the entertainment industry.

The authorities have been increasingly critical of the trend some refer to as “sissy men”,  which include pop idols that wear make-up or who do not conform to “macho” male stereotypes prevalent in traditional Chinese culture. Some in China also see the popularity of such idols, often referred to as “little fresh meat”, as a threat to traditional social values.

The eight-point plan, which calls for “further regulation of arts and entertainment shows and related personnel”, was released by the National Radio and Television Administration on their website on Thursday morning.

Under the section “boycotting being overly entertaining”, the notice stated there needed to be more emphasis on “traditional Chinese culture, revolution culture, socialist culture” and that they will establish a “correct beauty standard”, including boycotting “sissy idols”, vulgar internet celebrities.

The Associated Press provides more detail, writing that President Xi Jinping’s

government also is tightening control over Chinese internet industries.

It has launched anti-monopoly, data security and other enforcement actions at companies including games and social media provider Tencent Holding and e-commerce giant Alibaba Group that the ruling party worries are too big and independent.

Rules that took effect Wednesday limit anyone under 18 to three hours per week of online games and prohibit play on school days.

Game developers already were required to submit new titles for government approval before they could be released. Officials have called on them to add nationalistic themes.

The party also is tightening control over celebrities.

Broadcasters should avoid performers who “violate public order” or have “lost morality,” the regulator said. Programs about the children of celebrities also are banned.

In contrast, on the cutting edge of Western (un)thought is Sweden, which, quite a while ago, officially declared that it has “the first feminist government in the world.” The United States isn’t far behind, either. As American Thinker’s Eric Utter writes, warning about how China’s Yang may trump our Yin:

Our progressives are worried about “toxic masculinity” and are constantly tabulating the number of new genders they claim to have discovered.  They are consumed with making sure those men who claim to be women can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms — and vice-versa.  Americans have gradually become feminized and infantilized.  We are more worried about “microaggressions” than we are about macro-aggressions such as those perpetrated by China or the Taliban.  Too many of our college students run for their “safe spaces” if they hear something with which they don’t agree or that may make them sad or confused…all while exclaiming, “Where are my warm milk and cookies?  Where is a furry little puppy?  Where’s the Play-Doh?”

Virtually all Democratic politicians — whether male, female, or other — claim to be feminists, in touch with their feelings, empathetic.  Yet they just handed an entire nation over to a ruling mob that lops off women’s clitorises and then forces them into sex slavery.

Utter then wrote, “We are simply not a serious — or sane — nation anymore.” Interestingly, this warning comes not just from the “right” but also the “left.” We have become “a silly people,” liberal comedian commentator Bill Maher lamented in March, addressing our “woke” degradation and how Beijing was “eating our lunch.” The Chinese, he said, “are as serious as a prison fight.”

They surely are serious about their masculinization efforts. In fact, it was announced earlier this year that China had adopted a policy called “Proposal on Preventing the Feminization of Male Adolescents”; it’s designed to cultivate masculinity in teen boys, who a top Chinese political adviser described as now being “delicate, cowardly and effeminate.”

In contrast, again, the Washington Times reported in 2015 that two “years ago, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the nation’s top military officer, laid down an edict on the Obama administration’s plan to open direct land combat jobs to women: If women cannot meet a standard, senior commanders better have a good reason why it should not be lowered.” 

This is madness. While Christians may say it’s divinely ordained and secularists may call it “sexual dimorphism,” the reality is that men and women are different. These differences correspond to and imply different roles. And just as a machine only functions properly when its various parts are in their proper places doing what they should, civilization only flourishes when the sexes perform their roles as they should (e.g., a man can’t be a mommy or a woman a daddy).

Leftists suppose, however, that androgyny should be embraced and we can switch parts’ places, as if the sexes are perfectly interchangeable, without the machinery of civilization breaking down. It’s a fantasy of the effete and overly indulged.

It doesn’t last too long, though. The feminists used to proclaim that women could do anything men could do and do it better — even in sports. But then some “transgender” individuals entered women’s athletics and achieved victory, thus providing an object lesson in reality and making the feminists cry foul (they then blamed the men’s rights movement!).

As a result of the wider indulging of feminist dogma, however, the object lesson we may get in the future won’t involve just losing some titles and trophies. All “the future is female!” agitation may help ensure is that the future is Chinese.

Source link