The 4th highest paid staffer, AJ Hikes was the ACLU's 1st DEI chief and is at the center of an NLRB case against the ACLU that found it illegally fired an employee on claims she used racist language.
Boys can request testosterone for a deeper voice? I was a high school and college athlete deeply involved in illegal doping. There’s a substantial illegal network for obtaining steroids for athletes, bodybuilders, etc. What a surprise to learn we could’ve just asked our pediatrician for anabolic steroids for our voices. I’d expect a claim like this from a 13yr old on TikTok.
Some thoughts about whether or not to use someone's preferred pronouns:
First, I think there's plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree on what policy to use. This is not to tell anyone what their policy should be.
Second, neither extreme feels right to me. Even if I don't think people can actually, literally change their sex, I know plenty of people are just doing their best to live their lives as best as they understand, and that part of that includes being thought of as the opposite sex while making minimal impact on other people. For those people, 100% sex-based pronouns feels like being cruel for no good reason.
On the other hand, always going along with someone's preferred pronouns, which I think is your policy, often feels like being asked to be dishonest ("no, I don't actually think this person is a man"), or being a pawn in someone's narcissistic self-identity or political project.
Which basically leaves me in the position of going along with someone's preferred pronouns based on whether or not I like them, which also feels wrong. I still don't know what I think the right answer is. I often change my mind
I will say that, to me, calling AJ Hikes "they/them" REALLY feels like being asked to going along with someone's narcissistic political project, which I don't feel inclined to do. Again, reasonable people can disagree about this.
"First, I think there's plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree on what policy to use. This is not to tell anyone what their policy should be."
This person is very clearly not trying to negotiate your policy. They are discussing the issue more broadly in the context of AJ Hikes. (You've already mentioned elsewhere that neopronouns that might cause confusion are where you draw the line.)
But it's not even the starkest example lately. The rape case out of Chowchilla, in which the trial court ruled that the two female victims of a male inmate's rape must use his 'preferred pronouns' (she/her) during the course of the criminal trial, is where the pronoun rubber really meets the road.
The crime he's accused of can only be committed by a man - a male. Obviously, compelling the use of preferred pronouns here is both absurd and cruel, but also undermines the very prosecution they are involved in.
There is a way to report on this without ever having to use 'preferred pronouns,' but it becomes a silly dance that undermines clear communication.
And that is the point- to create confusion, annoyance, discord, internal conflict so that eventually you give up and decide to just be kind and use them. And then we get news reports and rape trial cases where the men are referred to as women. And female victims must refer to their male rapist as a woman. The judges who allow this have seen pronoun use as normalized and been trained (under duress sometimes) that it is kind. But…. To whom is it kind? The alleged attacker or the female victim? What about a child?
The very intent of queer theory is to sow chaos and confusion in a society with norms. Wrong pronouns are a useful tool.
I similarly struggle with this, but I understand why a someone, especially a reporter, would choose to use preferred pronouns. It should theoretically reduce perceptions/accusations of bias, although it would seem this has not been afforded to either Ben Ryan or Jesse Singal who are regularly accused of "transphobia" for merely reporting on the science and inconsistencies on the issues.
I also view it as similar to when I choose to use "she/her" when I'm talking about a drag queen or a female impersonator like Dame Edna. It doesn't mean I actually believe those individuals or actors are truly women when I'm using feminine pronouns (which I personally use in biologically-backed, sex-based contexts). Or, to make an analogy with religion (which I believe gender ideology to be), I view it similar to my choice to capitalize "God" or "Allah" or "Jehovah" even though I'm not a believer myself.
I am thankful that I stopped giving to the ACLU before this person on-boarded. What a waste of charitable resources - $543K for someone to lie, accuse people of racism, and make sure children suffer medical harm!
I won't support the ACLU again, monetarily or otherwise, until they get back to basics. The bastardized version of "intersectionality" that many nonprofits have employed over the past 10 years has ruined the clarity of their missions. It's also come at a cost to their professionalism and effectiveness. Just look at the podcast referenced in this Substack article! Appalling nonsense coming from someone paid half a million dollars a year.
Haha...when I first heard about the NLRB case, I laughed hard because I remember Amber Hikes from Philadelphia’s Office of LGBT Affairs. Look, Philly is my hometown, but the LGBTQST@123!# scene here is so roiled with nonstop drama that I wouldn't hire ANYONE from it for a serious public policy role. Seriously, Google about the Mazzoni Center or The Attic if you want to read about some internecine warfare.
This "boys can get T for a deeper voice" thing would be laughable if Supreme Court Justice Jackson didn't evidently believe it--she sure talked about it enough during the Skrmetti arguments. I remember she hammered Matthew Rice about that, finally forcing him to admit that, no, HB1 would not ban such treatment. I was like, "But another statute would! HB1 isn't the entirety of law in Tennesee!" So frustrating.
Yep, I found it hard to wrap my head around the fact that, despite the fact that the justice's hypothetical was illegal since T is a controlled substance, she seemed to have scored a point with it regardless.
I saw the ACLU clip when you posted it. I had no idea her salary would be $543K. What an embarrassment those comments were.............but they were totally on-brand for ACLU and trans activism world.
My suspicion is that Strangio's Supreme Court admission of negligible completed suicide rates will have little purchase. This is anything but a fact based world, as you and readers know.
Agreed. In an echo-chamber where "lived experience" trump's empiricism, you can bet the ACLU's debrief session included all kinds of talk about how science has a "cishet-normative" bias.
This org used to advocate against giving these drugs to convicted child r*pists, because it violated their civil liberties. Now they’re saying giving them to children is a civil rights issue.
It is so great that you are reporting corruption within organizations like the ACLU (especially since they get government money to do their work). People who are lucky enough not to be swimming in this toxic ideology and it’s fallout have absolutely no comprehension of the depth of infiltration/corruption of our institutions. Especially ones that have the power to make public policy. The powers that be who are running this show have so carefully curated their network of worker bees to push - or shove- the ideology upon our society. It’s insanely clever, deep and dangerous. I see it as similar to the successful practice of source laundering that has been revealed among many so called ‘expert’ organizations.
So much to unpack here. I haven't trusted the ACLU since the Skokie case. 'Principled liberal' is an excellent cover story for an amoral lawyer who wishes to advertise that they will take money from anyone, no matter how despicable. And being an amoral lawyer is very lucrative, at least in the short term.
If a butt lift is gender-affirming care, that concedes gender affirmation is cosmetic. It cannot be 'medically necessary' since its goal is to address body image, which is by definition psychological. There's a dissonance between making an insurance claim based on a DSM-5 diagnosis and simultaneously claiming that you aren't mentally ill.
The idea that radical mastectomy turns a woman into a non-woman is based on an extremely shallow understanding of what a woman is. I would expect that level of understanding from a 12 year old boy who was educationally sub-normal. Where does it leave female breast cancer patients who have the same procedure, are they no longer women?
Transracialism in my opinion makes more sense than transgenderism unlike sex race actually is a social construct like for example all Europeans today it sended from a hunter-gatherer group in Europe who had light blue eyes but dark skin https://m.youtube.com/shorts/MvrL4mS6cWg
Boys can request testosterone for a deeper voice? I was a high school and college athlete deeply involved in illegal doping. There’s a substantial illegal network for obtaining steroids for athletes, bodybuilders, etc. What a surprise to learn we could’ve just asked our pediatrician for anabolic steroids for our voices. I’d expect a claim like this from a 13yr old on TikTok.
Maybe if you go by a plural pronoun you get multiple people's salaries at the ACLU.
Apologies, could not resist, but thank you for holding the feet the fire as usual.
Once the ACLU did great and necessary work. Now it’s pathetic.
Some thoughts about whether or not to use someone's preferred pronouns:
First, I think there's plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree on what policy to use. This is not to tell anyone what their policy should be.
Second, neither extreme feels right to me. Even if I don't think people can actually, literally change their sex, I know plenty of people are just doing their best to live their lives as best as they understand, and that part of that includes being thought of as the opposite sex while making minimal impact on other people. For those people, 100% sex-based pronouns feels like being cruel for no good reason.
On the other hand, always going along with someone's preferred pronouns, which I think is your policy, often feels like being asked to be dishonest ("no, I don't actually think this person is a man"), or being a pawn in someone's narcissistic self-identity or political project.
Which basically leaves me in the position of going along with someone's preferred pronouns based on whether or not I like them, which also feels wrong. I still don't know what I think the right answer is. I often change my mind
I will say that, to me, calling AJ Hikes "they/them" REALLY feels like being asked to going along with someone's narcissistic political project, which I don't feel inclined to do. Again, reasonable people can disagree about this.
I use people's preferred pronouns in my reporting. That is my policy and is not up for negotiation. Thanks.
"First, I think there's plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree on what policy to use. This is not to tell anyone what their policy should be."
This person is very clearly not trying to negotiate your policy. They are discussing the issue more broadly in the context of AJ Hikes. (You've already mentioned elsewhere that neopronouns that might cause confusion are where you draw the line.)
But it's not even the starkest example lately. The rape case out of Chowchilla, in which the trial court ruled that the two female victims of a male inmate's rape must use his 'preferred pronouns' (she/her) during the course of the criminal trial, is where the pronoun rubber really meets the road.
The crime he's accused of can only be committed by a man - a male. Obviously, compelling the use of preferred pronouns here is both absurd and cruel, but also undermines the very prosecution they are involved in.
There is a way to report on this without ever having to use 'preferred pronouns,' but it becomes a silly dance that undermines clear communication.
https://abc30.com/post/pronoun-use-center-rape-case-involving-former-chowchilla-prisoner/15684307/
And that is the point- to create confusion, annoyance, discord, internal conflict so that eventually you give up and decide to just be kind and use them. And then we get news reports and rape trial cases where the men are referred to as women. And female victims must refer to their male rapist as a woman. The judges who allow this have seen pronoun use as normalized and been trained (under duress sometimes) that it is kind. But…. To whom is it kind? The alleged attacker or the female victim? What about a child?
The very intent of queer theory is to sow chaos and confusion in a society with norms. Wrong pronouns are a useful tool.
I thought we were supposed to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in court. The pronoun police demand otherwise.
I similarly struggle with this, but I understand why a someone, especially a reporter, would choose to use preferred pronouns. It should theoretically reduce perceptions/accusations of bias, although it would seem this has not been afforded to either Ben Ryan or Jesse Singal who are regularly accused of "transphobia" for merely reporting on the science and inconsistencies on the issues.
I also view it as similar to when I choose to use "she/her" when I'm talking about a drag queen or a female impersonator like Dame Edna. It doesn't mean I actually believe those individuals or actors are truly women when I'm using feminine pronouns (which I personally use in biologically-backed, sex-based contexts). Or, to make an analogy with religion (which I believe gender ideology to be), I view it similar to my choice to capitalize "God" or "Allah" or "Jehovah" even though I'm not a believer myself.
I am thankful that I stopped giving to the ACLU before this person on-boarded. What a waste of charitable resources - $543K for someone to lie, accuse people of racism, and make sure children suffer medical harm!
I won't support the ACLU again, monetarily or otherwise, until they get back to basics. The bastardized version of "intersectionality" that many nonprofits have employed over the past 10 years has ruined the clarity of their missions. It's also come at a cost to their professionalism and effectiveness. Just look at the podcast referenced in this Substack article! Appalling nonsense coming from someone paid half a million dollars a year.
Haha...when I first heard about the NLRB case, I laughed hard because I remember Amber Hikes from Philadelphia’s Office of LGBT Affairs. Look, Philly is my hometown, but the LGBTQST@123!# scene here is so roiled with nonstop drama that I wouldn't hire ANYONE from it for a serious public policy role. Seriously, Google about the Mazzoni Center or The Attic if you want to read about some internecine warfare.
This "boys can get T for a deeper voice" thing would be laughable if Supreme Court Justice Jackson didn't evidently believe it--she sure talked about it enough during the Skrmetti arguments. I remember she hammered Matthew Rice about that, finally forcing him to admit that, no, HB1 would not ban such treatment. I was like, "But another statute would! HB1 isn't the entirety of law in Tennesee!" So frustrating.
Yep, I found it hard to wrap my head around the fact that, despite the fact that the justice's hypothetical was illegal since T is a controlled substance, she seemed to have scored a point with it regardless.
He did raise the other law at a later point, kind of toward the end.
I saw the ACLU clip when you posted it. I had no idea her salary would be $543K. What an embarrassment those comments were.............but they were totally on-brand for ACLU and trans activism world.
My suspicion is that Strangio's Supreme Court admission of negligible completed suicide rates will have little purchase. This is anything but a fact based world, as you and readers know.
Agreed. In an echo-chamber where "lived experience" trump's empiricism, you can bet the ACLU's debrief session included all kinds of talk about how science has a "cishet-normative" bias.
This org used to advocate against giving these drugs to convicted child r*pists, because it violated their civil liberties. Now they’re saying giving them to children is a civil rights issue.
This whole industry makes me want to scream 🥴😭
(receipts: https://youtu.be/caqWmDFlkbA?si=0e2oNmOgY_n5-j-X)
It is so great that you are reporting corruption within organizations like the ACLU (especially since they get government money to do their work). People who are lucky enough not to be swimming in this toxic ideology and it’s fallout have absolutely no comprehension of the depth of infiltration/corruption of our institutions. Especially ones that have the power to make public policy. The powers that be who are running this show have so carefully curated their network of worker bees to push - or shove- the ideology upon our society. It’s insanely clever, deep and dangerous. I see it as similar to the successful practice of source laundering that has been revealed among many so called ‘expert’ organizations.
The ACLU is not government funded.
So much to unpack here. I haven't trusted the ACLU since the Skokie case. 'Principled liberal' is an excellent cover story for an amoral lawyer who wishes to advertise that they will take money from anyone, no matter how despicable. And being an amoral lawyer is very lucrative, at least in the short term.
If a butt lift is gender-affirming care, that concedes gender affirmation is cosmetic. It cannot be 'medically necessary' since its goal is to address body image, which is by definition psychological. There's a dissonance between making an insurance claim based on a DSM-5 diagnosis and simultaneously claiming that you aren't mentally ill.
The idea that radical mastectomy turns a woman into a non-woman is based on an extremely shallow understanding of what a woman is. I would expect that level of understanding from a 12 year old boy who was educationally sub-normal. Where does it leave female breast cancer patients who have the same procedure, are they no longer women?
Sad that she cut off her breasts—shows her commitment to the bit!
Baptism by scalpel.
Another proud Penn alum /s. Fight on Quakers!
Transracialism in my opinion makes more sense than transgenderism unlike sex race actually is a social construct like for example all Europeans today it sended from a hunter-gatherer group in Europe who had light blue eyes but dark skin https://m.youtube.com/shorts/MvrL4mS6cWg
Have you responded these week critiques of the cast review are they just parroting the integrity project https://www.teenvogue.com/story/yale-report-slams-cass-review-misrepresents-data-on-transgender-youth https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/15/archdischild-2024-327994
“DEI chief” is all you need to see. If you’re looking for “stupid”, look no further.