I would just somewhat amend the section that has to do with "intersexed" people, which truly are a small amount of people and are NOT "trans"...intersexed people are actually coopted by the "transmafia" and many resent that.
I would just amend it to say that unless the individual presents intersexed traits that have negative health outcomes, then medical intervention is NOT necessary. Medical intervention on the healthy intersexed people is NOT necessary either.
The transmafia WILL TRY to say they are instersexed if they think they can get medicalized that way, since they conflate everything and even though it is untrue.
The word "woman" was a biologically protected sex class, and that didn't stop the transmafia's intrusion.
The medical establishment is compromised and LARGELY FOR PROFIT, so they may move toward the conflation of "trans" with intersexed, if there's money to be made in it. So, I would amend the bill just slightly to say that medical intervention on healthy intersexed people is NOT "care".
Remember that the transmafia always looks for LANGUAGE LOOPHOLES FOR CONFLATION PURPOSES.
I have two comments. The first is agreement on the intersex part. Tightening that up as much as possible, no suggestions on language, would be a good move.
I think the word intersex should be changed to Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD), which is the correct term. The TRAs are keeping intersex alive because it suits their political agenda. Intersex is pushed to mean there is an option for not male or female, which is not true. They don’t want to use DSD because it proves everyone is classified by male or female, including those with genetic defects or birth defects. Those categories could be added to the bill. When presented as such, people are far more likely to understand there is no third option at all. I think using intersex is disrespectful. I’m not personally offended but by using DSD and stating it is colloquially and incorrectly called intersex it
removes one of their talking points. They are also already en masse declaring themselves intersex based on feelings. Additionally, it is in the best interest of clarity and doesn’t hurt to show the narrative for those opposed includes a co-opting of a medical diagnosis as a political point.
My second is on the definitions of female and male. I would suggest adopting the wording of the EO. That language was crafted by people who have been fighting the gender framework for years. They were being proactive in blocking future arguments.
Transwomen are now claiming they are female, biologically female, etc. The UK just defined a woman as a biological woman and Peter Thatchel went on GB News and said that the ruling needed to be clarified, again, because they don’t define “biological”. The language in the EO should spread, IMO, because it takes it back to the second of conception. Even at birth leaves them a loop hole for their shenanigans.
Great work, the penalties are high. This will put a stop to it in states where it passes.
Agreed. And thanks for this well-thought-out post, Feral Hamsters (LOVE that handle, too).
In many ways, this is a War of Words and we have to be careful NOT to let the transmafia find loopholes through language. I also avoid using the word "transwoman" for that reason.
I especially liked what you wrote in these Quotes:
-"Intersex is pushed to mean there is an option for not male or female, which is not true".
-"The TRAs are keeping intersex alive because it suits their political agenda."
-And that we have to "remove one of their talking points".
I do a lot of work in a boots-on-the-ground sort of way here in NYC.
Here is one of the mainstream press articles that feature many of my sound bites, if you want to read it, and my direct email address is below it if you are interested in communicating with me off of substack:
Wow, this is great. Too bad Nevada just ended our legislative session and only have it every other year. But I have a question, why are you using the "assigned at birth" language? It's tra nonsense that just muddies the water and gives them the same excuse as "intersex", which others have covered.
Thank you. I know you put a lot of work into this. I have only one comment, why this:
'This Act may be cited as "The Zywiec Act."'
Why not call it something that people will recognize and understand from the title?
Thanks, Andrew. A lot of work here and I like it.
I would just somewhat amend the section that has to do with "intersexed" people, which truly are a small amount of people and are NOT "trans"...intersexed people are actually coopted by the "transmafia" and many resent that.
I would just amend it to say that unless the individual presents intersexed traits that have negative health outcomes, then medical intervention is NOT necessary. Medical intervention on the healthy intersexed people is NOT necessary either.
The transmafia WILL TRY to say they are instersexed if they think they can get medicalized that way, since they conflate everything and even though it is untrue.
The word "woman" was a biologically protected sex class, and that didn't stop the transmafia's intrusion.
The medical establishment is compromised and LARGELY FOR PROFIT, so they may move toward the conflation of "trans" with intersexed, if there's money to be made in it. So, I would amend the bill just slightly to say that medical intervention on healthy intersexed people is NOT "care".
Remember that the transmafia always looks for LANGUAGE LOOPHOLES FOR CONFLATION PURPOSES.
I have two comments. The first is agreement on the intersex part. Tightening that up as much as possible, no suggestions on language, would be a good move.
I think the word intersex should be changed to Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD), which is the correct term. The TRAs are keeping intersex alive because it suits their political agenda. Intersex is pushed to mean there is an option for not male or female, which is not true. They don’t want to use DSD because it proves everyone is classified by male or female, including those with genetic defects or birth defects. Those categories could be added to the bill. When presented as such, people are far more likely to understand there is no third option at all. I think using intersex is disrespectful. I’m not personally offended but by using DSD and stating it is colloquially and incorrectly called intersex it
removes one of their talking points. They are also already en masse declaring themselves intersex based on feelings. Additionally, it is in the best interest of clarity and doesn’t hurt to show the narrative for those opposed includes a co-opting of a medical diagnosis as a political point.
My second is on the definitions of female and male. I would suggest adopting the wording of the EO. That language was crafted by people who have been fighting the gender framework for years. They were being proactive in blocking future arguments.
Transwomen are now claiming they are female, biologically female, etc. The UK just defined a woman as a biological woman and Peter Thatchel went on GB News and said that the ruling needed to be clarified, again, because they don’t define “biological”. The language in the EO should spread, IMO, because it takes it back to the second of conception. Even at birth leaves them a loop hole for their shenanigans.
Great work, the penalties are high. This will put a stop to it in states where it passes.
Agreed. And thanks for this well-thought-out post, Feral Hamsters (LOVE that handle, too).
In many ways, this is a War of Words and we have to be careful NOT to let the transmafia find loopholes through language. I also avoid using the word "transwoman" for that reason.
I especially liked what you wrote in these Quotes:
-"Intersex is pushed to mean there is an option for not male or female, which is not true".
-"The TRAs are keeping intersex alive because it suits their political agenda."
-And that we have to "remove one of their talking points".
I do a lot of work in a boots-on-the-ground sort of way here in NYC.
Here is one of the mainstream press articles that feature many of my sound bites, if you want to read it, and my direct email address is below it if you are interested in communicating with me off of substack:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/trans-rights-activists-bizarrely-perform-silent-macarena-dance-new-york-city-education-meeting
MY EMAIL: JoannaVitalHealth@protonmail.com
Wow, this is great. Too bad Nevada just ended our legislative session and only have it every other year. But I have a question, why are you using the "assigned at birth" language? It's tra nonsense that just muddies the water and gives them the same excuse as "intersex", which others have covered.
A laborious treatise. No wiggle room.
Brilliant, let the games begin.
Any fool against this outs themself...