With tacit Democrat encouragement of rioting, calls to dismantle the police, and advocacy of free healthcare for illegals, it’s easy to forget radical leftist proposals lurking in the background — ones more likely to become law if Democrats win the November election. Exhibit A is a bill that would put men “in women’s bathrooms, boys in girls’ sports, and worst of all,” would forbid parents “from blocking ‘sex-reassignment surgery’ for their minor children,” as the Washington Examiner puts it.
“These are among the radical implications of the Equality Act supported by almost all Senate Democrats,” the Examiner continues.
Ah, “equality.” Marketing something with that favored modern buzzword and obsession lends automatic credibility. But at issue here are radically different conceptions of “equality,” a principle that, to be frank, neither side seems to truly understand.
Easy to understand is that putting men in women’s sports and private spaces is, like dismantling the police, wildly unpopular with average Americans. Thus does the Examiner suggest that the Democrats’ Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS, or “transgender”) agenda may “be the sleeper issue of the fall campaign” — and it’s one on which a traditionalist group called the American Principles Project (APP) aims to hammer the Democrats hard.
The “APP is running ads in Michigan against incumbent Democratic Sen. Gary Peters and … presidential nominee Joe Biden because of their support for the Equality Act,” the Examiner also tells us. “The three ads pull no punches. Two of them feature a man named Kevin Whitt who transitioned to female as a teenager, only to decide 17 years later he was a man after all. He says that sex changes for minors are ‘child abuse.’ A third commercial features girls running on a track but beaten by a person who is still obviously a boy and thus losing the championships, and maybe scholarships, they otherwise would have won.”
The latter isn’t just theoretical. It has already happened as the result of “equality”-oriented state laws, which lends credibility to the warning that the “Equality Act” (you can read the bill here) would impose such lunacy nationwide. Two APP ads are below.
The ads not only are effective, but they don’t even overstate the case. MUSSmen/boys have for years already been taking sporting titles from women/girls, as I’ve reported. And there are even more striking “sex-mutilation” regret stories than Whitt’s. Then 18-year-old “Nathaniel,” for example, had “bottom surgery” in 2018, but mere months later called it a “Frankenstein” transition that has “ruined” his life.
Enabling this mutilation is, as Whitt said, “child abuse” — and Biden and virtually the entire Democrat Party are all for it.
Speaking of abuse, commentator Andrea Widburg points out that the “Equality Bill” would also ensure something else: that intensely unhappy people such as the one in the video below (warning: vulgar language) would get to share restrooms with your daughter.
The angry man’s reaction speaks volumes. He exploded in rage because living an illusion is difficult, so he wants everyone to participate in his illusion. For his is a bubble that’s easily burst by even a truthful one-word utterance (a masculine pronoun or salutation).
Now I have a bubble to burst myself. I’m opposed to the “Equality Act,” as you may guess. I also take a back seat to no one in combating the MUSS agenda (heck, I originated the acronym “MUSS”!), having devoted much ink to it, and have shown it to be wholly unscientific. I also understand well the male/female athletics performance gap, having pointed out that in some sports even top 14-year-old boys outperform the best women. But…. Yes, there’s a but.
To wit: The Examiner approvingly quotes a 2019 Washington Post article in which sexual devolutionary activists “write that without an exception to its language for Title IX, which mandates adequate funding for women’s sports, the Equality Act ‘would do significant damage to Title IX and to the Amateur Sports Act, which governs sports outside of educational settings.’”
“As they further explain,” the Examiner continues, “‘Title IX not only permits but often requires educational institutions that receive federal money to provide separate programs and opportunities for females based on sex’” (separate but equal?).
Now, there’s one thing here I oppose more than the “Equality Act”: the “Equality Act” with a Title IX exception. To introduce why, here’s the activists’ money line:
“This [the exception] is necessary because sex segregation is the only way to achieve equality for girls and women in competitive athletics.”
Okay, now, a little perspective: Considering how black men constitute 80 percent of the NBA and also dominate numerically in certain other sports, imagine if someone said, “A separate sporting arena for Caucasians is necessary because racial segregation is the only way to achieve equality for whites in competitive athletics.” Would anyone, for a moment, believe this was about “equality”?
It’s one thing to support having a separate, protected, less competitive athletic arena for women; it’s another thing to do so while pretending it’s about equality.
Equality of opportunity, after all, would mean having both sexes compete together — as the races do — and letting the cream rise to the top. And if male-female equality of outcome were possible here, then, well, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
The equality pretext is especially silly considering that despite our supposed athletics sex segregation, girls are still allowed to play on “boys’” teams. Yet boys aren’t allowed to play on girls’ teams. Equality?
Feminists and sexual devolutionary activists tout the equality argument not only because it’s suppositional and reflexive, but also convenient. Applying “equality” selectively, they can perpetuate the inherently unequal athletics sex-segregation system while also lobbying for contrary-to-market-dictates benefits such as prize money equal to the men’s (as the U.S. women’s soccer team did despite losing to 14-year-old boys).
But as the famous apocryphal saying goes, “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly” (this goes for social codes, too). So if people really want Equality™, they should, as H.L. Mencken might say, “get it good and hard.”
A bigger problem than the Equality Act is that equality is an act — and it’s easy to be idealistic when you don’t have to live with your ideals.
Photo: stevanovicigor/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke) has written for The New American for more than a decade. He has also written for The Hill, Observer, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily, American Thinker, and many other print and online publications. In addition, he has contributed to college textbooks published by Gale-Cengage Learning, has appeared on television, and is a frequent guest on radio.
