House Democrats unanimously voted this week against legislation to build a new women’s history museum on the National Mall. The reason was an amendment that limited the exhibits to biological women to the exclusion of transgender figures. The museum failed 204-216 as House Democrats hoped that they could still secure a museum including transgender figures once they retake power after the midterm elections.
The amendment drafted by Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., states in part, “The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements and lived experiences of biological women in the United States.”
It further mandated that the museum would not depict “any biological male as female.”
The vote was notable after the release of the DNC “autopsy” report that flagged how transgender and identity politics contributed to the defeat in the last election.
The report specifically noted the success of Trump’s “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you” ad. The report noted that “If the Vice President would not change her position — and she did not — then there was nothing which would have worked as a response.”
The fact that this was a unanimous vote among Democratic members is particularly notable and suggests that transgender issues will remain a rallying point for the Democrats.
Democratic members called the exclusion a “poison pill” amendment.
In the meantime, transgender issues continue to occupy the courts with a major decision by the Colorado Supreme Court this week that ordered Colorado’s largest provider of gender-affirming care for young people to resume medical treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
That puts Children’s Hospital Colorado in direct conflict with the Department of Health and Human Services, which has moved to block federal support for institutions providing such care.
Justice William Wood III wrote that “We conclude that the actual immediate and irreparable harm to petitioners outweighs the speculative harm CHC may face if the federal government further acts against it.”
In his dissent, Justice Brian Boatright said that this was hardly a speculative matter, but “a decision driven by the direct threat to the viability of the entire hospital.”
Here is the opinion: Boe v. Child.’s Hosp. Colo.
In regard to the instance of a person ‘A’ biologically born as a particular gender suddenly declaring that ‘A’ chooses to be of the other (or another) gender: where does this unreality-based dynamic stop? Suppose a person (on the basis, likely, of this Dem-indentured dynamic) declares herself to be the reincarnation of Elizabeth I of England or a Russian Tsaritsa of old? Or a male declaring himself to be the reincarnation of George Washington or one of the Apostles or even Christ? On what basis could such a person be denied a change in drivers-license and voting-list identity? On what basis could such a person be legally protected from a possible characterization as being in need of psychiatric services or even intervention? After all, is ‘reincarnation’ any more bizarre than the bleat about being ‘born in the wrong body’ (or – more accurately, I would say) in a non-preferred body?
Everyday it seems that I learn something new on this blog. Professor Turley writes, “[The amendment] further mandated that the museum would not depict “any biological male as female.”” Now just suppose, for the sake of argument, that biological men should be depicted as women because of facts as the Democratic house members would have us believe. That would cast the 19th amendment as well as much of American politics prior to the ratification of the 19th amendment in a quite different light than how I had previously understood it. Now I will need to reframe, in my mind, the justification of the 19th amendment because clearly women must have already had the right to vote. Moreover, while it may be entirely conjecture, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris may have been vying to become not the 1st woman president but the 2nd (or 3rd) woman president. The acceptance of this “fact” is certain to reenergize a whole series of surely insightful, productive academic inquiries and discoveries for decades to come.
Great Turley
A hospital caught between both levels of the federal republic. The hospital’s next ask is to one, maybe two branches of the national government’s thin black line, the Article lll people, and the Article l Chapter 11 people. This whole dispute resonates with the idea that when kings fight, peasants die.
The irony about the decision in Colorado is it directs the hospital to provide treatment that in every single piece of medical literature has proven is not effective and is harmful
There will come a point when enough people abandon ship and these positions will no longer be viable. Now, when that point will come I have no idea, but it is coming sometime soon. It’s in the pipeline, it’s coming down the road and you can see it right now; mainstream, middle of the road Democrats and Independence are not going to go for this position. It’s is that simple.
I like the following thought experiment:
If you put fifty men and fifty women on a beautiful, fertile, productive island, when you go visit in a hundred years you are likely to find a thriving little community.
If you put fifty men and fifty transwomen on a beautiful, fertile, productive island, when you go visit in a hundred years you are guaranteed to find one hundred male skeletons, wolves, bears, and lost at sea notwithstanding.
Lefties are sooo lame.
Re: “I like the following thought experiment:” On the other hand, if they get horny enough, when you go visit in a hundred years one might just find a thriving little community.
So the crazy left now hate real women. Keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Newsflash. There has never been a transexual human. Men cannot become women and women cannot become men.
No amount of plastic surgery, hormone therapy, hairdoos, manicures, makeup, wigs or method acting classes can make a man into a woman. It’s just a stupid idea.
I can think of no historically significant positive contribution to culture that is directly related to a person’s sexual deviancy.
The political technique is to state as true something that is obviously, blatantly false in the eyes of any normal human being. When honest people object they are then pummeled with accusations of misogyny, bigotry, transphobia, homophobia, racism, xenophobia and more. It is nothing but a peurile method of telling people to shut up and take what is dished out. It’s a bait and switch. Once they shut down debate their actions will be focussed on money and power grabs.
The amazing thing to me is that Democratic politicians are so uniformly committed to transgenderism. The Democratic voters are not nearly so uniform in their support.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/06/gender-identity-sexual-orientation-and-the-2024-election/
I have an opinion on why that difference exists, but I am reluctant to state it.
As an example, among Biden supporters who are African-American, a majority support the conservative position: that sex is determined at birth. Yet all the Democrats in the Black Caucus voted with all the other Democrats on this vote! One would think that some of those black Democrats might have voted with their constituents on this.
The Democrat politicians are all sexual deviants?
We’ve been living in Idiocracy + 1984. Have we now added Anthony Burgess’ “The Wanting Seed” to our dystopian future?
I have an opinion on why that difference exists, but I am reluctant to state it.
≈===
Let’s hear it⬆️……😹😹😹
There’s way too much on the National Mall already. Less is more!
These Dems have abandoned heterosexual women. May this vote be remembered in November.
Identity politics is all they have and equality is killing them.
Trans is the final boss of dums identity politics.
If you beat trans you win the game.