Reason Roundup

Trump Administration Might Axe Title IX Protections for Transgender Students: Reason Roundup

Plus: Harvard on trial for discriminating against Asians, and look who's a YIMBY

|

Trans
Robin Rayne Nelson/ZUMA Press/Newscom

The Trump administration is considering an approach to anti-discrimination law that would define gender as "biological and immutable," according to The New York Times. The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, would consider a person's gender to be tied to the sex organs possessed at birth—meaning that the government would now ignore the wishes of trans men and women.

This would have huge implications for a number of federal programs, including public schools. The Obama administration held that Title IX, the federal statute mandating sex equality in education, required equal accommodation for trans students who wanted to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that matched their gender expression. The Trump administration has already walked back that guidance, but now it reportedly plans to go further.

This is all according to a memo obtained by The New York Times:

The [Department of Health and Human Services] argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable." The agency's proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one's sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

"Sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth," the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. "The sex listed on a person's birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person's sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence."

It's true that the Obama administration's expansive interpretation went well beyond the original purpose of the one-sentence statute. Whether all schools are obligated to accommodate the exact demands of gender dysphoric youngsters is a delicate question, and one that existing law is poorly equipped to answer.

But the proposed policy seems gratuitously cruel toward trans people. There's nothing desirable about the government forcing people to identify as their discarded birth sex. If the government attempts to override individual choice and identity, that negates self-ownership.

FREE MINDS

Harvard is on trial for allegedly discriminating against Asian-American applicants, and week one of the proceedings was bruising for the admissions department. Even some who support affirmative action more broadly were put off by revelations that Harvard officials seemed to subscribe to lazy stereotypes about Asians, rating them negatively on subjective criteria like personality.

"It's angering to witness the dismissive, sweeping way that admissions officers discuss Asian-American applicants," writes Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. "The writing-off of these students as nondistinctive, interchangeable kids smacks of racist stereotypes often used against Asians in this country."

Asian Americans had the lowest admission rate among all racial groups from 1995 to 2013. If Harvard admitted students based solely on merit, Asians would constitute 43 percent of the incoming freshmen class. But due to legacy admissions, athletic recruits, and race-based preferences for black and Latino students, Asians represent just 18 percent of the student body.

"Contemporary affirmative action has failed millions of Asians pursuing the American dream," writes Kelley Babphavong, an Asian immigrant and a junior at Harvard, in a piece for The Wall Street Journal. "The plaintiffs challenging Harvard have already shown that Asian-Americans are held to higher standards than others, and often their rejection boils down to the single factor of race."

A loss for Harvard would not spell the immediate end of affirmative action. The issue is likely to end up before the Supreme Court, either way.

FREE MARKETS

Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is apparently on board with zoning reform but, sadly, thinks "capitalism has failed in all aspects."

QUICK HITS

  • Saudia Arabia has admitted that journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered but is denying the crown prince's involvement.
  • Something called "Politicon" took place in Los Angeles this weekend, and it sounds just as insufferable as you might have imagined.
  • Michael Avenatti was there, of course.
  • Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels and possible presidential contender (Lord help us all), apparently owes millions in taxes, though shaky financials are not actually a barrier to becoming president, it would seem.
  • Surprise, surprise: A professor of creative writing has an incoherent stance on cultural appropriation.

NEXT: Teacher Disciplined for "Bullying" Student Who Had Put Up a Swastika

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Saudia Arabia has admitted that journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered but is denying the crown prince’s involvement.

    You’re lucky you got that much.

    1. Hello.

      Obama did it? Overturn it.

      Being a leader has never been so easy!

    2. Many times a lie will reveal the truth.

  2. Something called “Politicon” took place in Los Angeles this weekend, and it sounds just as insufferable as you might have imagined.

    The Politicon part or the Los Angeles part?

    1. It’s that multiplier effect that we always hear about

  3. The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, would consider a person’s gender to be tied to the sex organs possessed at birth?meaning that the government would now ignore the wishes of trans men and women.

    You mean gender would be tied to chromosomes. Can’t turn an X into a Y.

    1. Do you really need your government to determine your gender? I believe gender as a legal category should be erased forever altogether. The only relevant use is to determine who goes to which prison, which is a poor reason to keep gender as a legal category, when this can and probably should – be simply determined by genitals (not chromosomess).

      1. The only relevant use is to determine who goes to which prison

        “Very well, then. Uni-gender prisons it is.”

        1. I wonder if co-ed prisons would end up reducing prison rape, if guards would have to take it more seriously.

      2. This betrays a lack of understanding about the differences of male and female that would be staggering except that the Dominant (Progressive Left) Narrative has been pushing this claptrap pretty hard.

        Seriously; look up brain differences. They exist. They aren’t going away. Wishing isn’t going to make them.

        1. So what sould be the government?s response to these differences, different laws for men and women? If yes, which laws specifically, based on exactly what differences? If not, why the fuck have gender as a legal category? Race should not be a legal category either.

          1. By all means, lets get rid of Title IX, then much of this nonsense goes away.

            Same for affirmative action.

            1. I agree. After it goes away, don?t try to legislate separately for men and women, and don?t try to “ban the trans”, and it will all be good.

              1. “ban the trans”
                That’s like banning the Easter Bunny. There’s no such thing as transgender outside the fevered hallucinations of people suffering from body dysmorphia.

          2. Our legal system already treats men and women differently. Women routinely receive much lighter prison sentences than men for the exact same crime. And in cases of domestic violence they assume the guy is perpetrator unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

            1. But that is not how the laws are written, that is how people in the system decide, based on their prejudice. This won?t disappear by abolishing gender as a category, this is about what people see in their heads when they read names and see faces.

              1. Still, it’s a felony for guys to fail to register for the draft, while women have no such obligation. I’m over 50, spent four years in the Air Force but still had to provide my Selective Service # to get a security clearance for my current job. Had I neglected to register I would have been fired. That’s not equal.

    2. The real tragedy is that this is within the purview of the federal government to be deciding anything, one way or the other, in the first place.

      I can’t imagine it would be such an oppressive act of cruelty to just leave private building owners and/or public building administrators to decide how to handle their own bathroom situations.

      1. No one is stopping you from playing make believe with people. All this is doing is saying the government isn’t going to force anyone to.

      2. The concern of private building owners is the threat of lawsuits for “violating” the “civil rights” of a dude who feels like a chick that day.

        The concern of public building managers is the need to build infinite bathrooms for any of the never-ending new genders of the day.

        1. I understand that. I’m saying that it’s absurd to consider it a civil rights violation when someone is expected to relieve themselves in a room that has urinals or a room that doesn’t. If society had a little bit of damned common sense, this would have never been an issue to begin with.

          1. If progs accepted common sense, we wouldnt have to. But given their never ending desire for a cause, we have to legalistically define everything.

      3. “The real tragedy is that this is within the purview of the federal government to be deciding anything…”

        Exactly.

        But foreseeable consequences are not unintended consequences.

        The only thing that wasn’t foreseen was Donald Trump.

        1. The only thing that wasn’t foreseen was Donald Trump.

          For he is the Kwisatz Haderach!

    3. “meaning that the government would now ignore the wishes of trans men and women.”

      There is nothing more libertarian than a government that doesn’t concern itself with peoples “wishes”.

      1. “Wish I may, wish I might
        Have this wish, I wish tonight
        I want that star, I want it now
        I want it all and I don’t care how”

      2. It would be even better if it didn?t concern itself with people?s genitals, chromosomes and identities. If there shouldn?t be separate laws for men and women, and I am saying they shouldn?t, gender as a legal category is obsolete.

        1. All well and good but society isn’t ready for that, I don’t think. Not ready for a male teacher to walk through the “girls” locker room, or for the boys and girls to shower together. Not ready for men and women to share jail cells, and so on, and etc.

          1. All well and good but society isn’t ready for that, I don’t think.

            Society today my ass.

            A government bound by what exists is better than a government bound by what doesn’t exist every day that ends in ‘y’.

            It’s not like the government has goon squads roving around measuring people’s genitals. These people are deliberately conflating ‘respect’ with ‘grant’ when they refer to wishes.

        2. there shouldn?t be separate laws for men and women

          So then, should men be able to decide to abort their unborn children? Should men be allowed to surrender an unwanted child for adoption? Should men no longer be required to provide support for a child they sired but don’t want? Should men be allowed to refuse paternity tests? Should public assistance for parents be divided equally between the mother and father? Should sex crime laws be rewritten to treat penetration and being penetrated equally for the purpose of defining rape?

          The differences between men and women are real and highly significant at least where matters of sex and reproduction are concerned. It would be silly and often unjust for the law to be blind to those differences. That doesn’t mean we need completely separate books of laws for men and women.

          1. With the exception of abortion, I don’t see why you can’t have gender-neutral policies for the other issues raised. And it is possible to rape a man by forcing him to penetrate.

            1. Of course it is POSSIBLE to have gender-neutral policies about some of these things. We could allow unwed fathers to drop off their unwanted newborns at the fire station, no questions asked, like mothers can. But, do we really WANT that? Would women want that?

    4. “But the proposed policy seems gratuitously cruel toward trans people. There’s nothing desirable about the government forcing people to identify as their discarded birth sex. If the government attempts to override individual choice and identity, that negates self-ownership.”

      Sounds like a good reason, if Americans agree, for Congress to pass a law and to stop relying on the King to decide everything. Maybe libertarians should stop complaining about what rules the King is making and start pointing out Congress should be making the rules, no matter if they are good or bad?

  4. Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels and possible presidential contender…

    Barely one and definitely not the other.

    1. Avenatti, who?

      1. “Avanatti into your pants!”

      2. You really don’t have to pretend to be dumb.

        1. Only a dumb person like you would care about scumbag lawyers.

  5. A professor of creative writing has an incoherent stance on cultural appropriation.

    It was a dark and stormy night, not that you’re allowed an umbrella unless you come from ancient Egypt.

    1. “A professor of creative writing has an incoherent stance on cultural appropriation.”

      That’s pretty snippy considering how incoherent REASON has become.

  6. …apparently owes millions in taxes, though shaky financials are not actually a barrier to becoming president, it would seem.

    He and the current president can spar over which is better at hiding finances from the voting public.

  7. “This is all according to a memo obtained by The New York Times”

    Consider the source…

    1. More concerningly, the NYT didn’t release the actual memo, just described how terrible it was. They also buried the fact that it was over a year old and had still not been submitted several paragraphs into the article. They further fail to note whether there was any official attempt to make it official policy or if it was just one angry staffer.

  8. Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels and possible presidential contender

    starting to feel like the people who don’t want this to happen are speaking it into existence.

  9. “Trump Administration Might Axe Title IX Protections for Transgender Students”

    A more accurate headline would be Trump Administration Supports Due Process

    1. Or

      “Trump Administration remembers why Title IX was created”.

      1. Would be funny if half of a university football team claimed to be trans women just so they can more money from the school without violating title ix.

  10. Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is apparently on board with zoning reform but, sadly, thinks “capitalism has failed in all aspects.”

    Failed to attain his goals, perhaps. The market failed to supply an endless supply of Member’s Only jackets.

  11. But the proposed policy seems gratuitously cruel toward trans people. There’s nothing desirable about the government forcing people to identify as their discarded birth sex. If the government attempts to override individual choice and identity, that negates self-ownership.

    So if someone identifies as a dog does that mean they can sue veterinarians who refuse to give them medical treatment?

    1. “Species Dysphoria”

    2. They don’t seem to explain how me claiming to be black is wrong but me claiming to be a woman is not. Neither are remotely accurate.

      And what is the point of Title IX in regards to, say, sports when men can just claim to be women and dominate every “woman’s” sport out there?

    3. How about we stop labeling and categorizing people and just treat everyone equally? The only reason to force people into groups is because it makes it easier to discriminate against ‘undesirables’ and give extra rights and privileges to the believed to be oppressed. That’s not equality.

      1. The problem is that people are not exactly the same. For more radical definitions of equal, treating people equally is impossible, or, at least disadvantageous because they are not the same.

        In the real world, you cannot assume chickens are spherical.

        1. Everyone should have the exact same rights and should be treated as individuals–not as part of some arbitrarily-defined group. But then it’d be harder to give extra rights and protections to ‘victims’ and to discriminate against the so-called privileged.

          1. I think you do not understand the meaning of “arbitrarily” if you think the categories of male and female are arbitrarily defined

            1. I never said gender was an arbitrary group. I was referring to all the silly other groups the Left has been defining over the years such as race, religious beliefs, etc.

              1. Gender is an arbitrary classification. Sex is not.

      2. Sex isn’t gender, according to some people, so title 9 simply doesn’t apply to them.

      3. Anyone not a mathematician using the word “equal” should be ignored, after being heartily laughed at.

      4. How about we stop labeling and categorizing people and just treat everyone equally?

        The people pushing for snowflake treatment for superstition and stale bigotry (endless “religious liberty” privilege to be used as sword and shield simultaneously) would never accept equal treatment. They insist that they be able to discriminate against others but that government should forbid discrimination against them.

      5. >>>How about we stop labeling and categorizing people and just treat everyone equally?

        yes! until you need middle linebackers and strong safeties.

    4. What does that have to do with whether the government should determine an adult person?s gender?

      1. The protected category under Title IX is sex. Sex is an objective and immutable category.

        A person’s subjective notion about what their gender is, is unaffected, but also unprotected under the title.

    5. “So if someone identifies as a dog does that mean they can sue veterinarians who refuse to give them medical treatment?”

      Yes, and they can fly for free if they are comforting somebody.

    6. gratuitously cruel

      Fuck you Robby. You have no idea what these words even mean.

    7. Given how much cheaper veterinary meds are, I may have to take this tack… 😉

      1. You jest, but buying meds from vets is a spreading underground practice in this country for that reason.

    8. I hate the way Robby phrases this. If a man wants to wear a dress and participate in “feminine” activities, that is his “individual choice.” To my knowledge, no one is attempting to remove the freedom. What is NOT an “individual choice” is your gender. That was pre-determined before birth. Identity can go to damnation, it doesn’t trump reality. If insisting people live in the real world and not force their delusions down anyone else’s throat is “cruel,” then call me Cruella DeVille.

  12. The Trump administration proposal would define “sex” as used in the Title IX language as being biologically determined. It is a bit disingenuous to make “sex” and “gender” completely synonymous all of sudden to say that they are making gender biologically determined

    1. Sex and gender mean whatever is politically convenient for the left at any one moment.

  13. Trump Administration Might Axe Title IX Protections for Transgender Students

    Good. One step closer to axing Title IX for everyone.

  14. “immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth”

    With all due respect, some private parts are pretty rather ambiguous. Better go the “Got Y chromosome?” route.

    1. I see sarcasmic has suggested this.

      *** gets coffee ***

  15. Even some who support affirmative action more broadly were put off by revelations that Harvard officials seemed to subscribe to lazy stereotypes about Asians, rating them negatively on subjective criteria like personality.

    Like that’s any less arbitrary than the rest of it.

    1. “that Harvard officials seemed to subscribe to lazy stereotypes about Asians,”

      See what happens when you let too many blacks in? You get lazy stereotypes.

      /ducks, runs in a serpentine pattern.

  16. This sudden caterwauling about universities discriminating against Asians is rich. These same schools have been openly discriminating against qualified white guys since the 70s and no one had a problem with that. As a guy who was denied a proper education because of how I was born, I have no sympathy.

    1. Maybe no sympathy from you, but I would think you’d be on board for the general thrust of what’s going on here.

      / Good band name: General Thrust.

      1. I have always opposed the concept of Affirmative Action. People should be judged on merit, not how they were born. And if that means future university students are 100% Asian, so be it. Everyone else will have to try harder to compete.

        1. Yes, that seems to be a possible consequence of this legal action. That’s why I thought you’d be more supportive of the Asians’ case.

          1. Most Asians didn’t care that universities were discriminating until it affected them. Again, it’s hard for me to feel sympathy for their plight since they showed no sympathy when it was only happening to guys like me.

            1. Citation please. And nice job ascribing (possible) individual feelings to an entire group.

              1. I’ve been in Southern California for over 50 years. We have a high Asian concentration here. I’ve gone to school with, worked with, been friends with, had romantic relationships with, and lived with many Asian people. I truly believe Asians are superior to whites in many ways. And yet not a single one ever told me they thought it was wrong to discriminate against white guys like me. Yes, this is anecdotal. But what is data but an arbitrary amount of anecdotal evidence?

            2. it’s hard for me to feel sympathy for their plight since they showed no sympathy when it was only happening to guys like me.

              Please tell us more about how your failures and inadequacies are someone else’s fault.

              1. Meanwhile, Arthur L. Hicklib blames others for his sub-par upbringing.

              2. Is it that unreasonable to want a level playing field? My older sister’s grades were average and far lower than mine. But she qualified for financial aid and I did not. How is that fair?

      2. Actually, General Thrust was my nickname in college (ROTC).

    2. We should continue to discriminate forever in order to be fair to the people who have already been discriminated against

    3. People who whine about all of the disadvantages that afflict white males in America are among my favorite disaffected, stale-thinking, grievance-consumed faux libertarians.

      1. Because giving an unfair advantage to people born a certain way is very Libertarian. You’re pathetic.

  17. Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Fox News “the murder” had been a “tremendous mistake” and denied the powerful crown prince had ordered it.

    Still not America’s problem…at all.

    1. I’m sure the UN Human Rights Council will get right on it.

    2. I’m sure the UN Human Rights Council will get right on it.

    3. You’re not very consistent on what is and is not “America’s” problem. “America” is a collective. “Americans” are individuals. If the collective can concern itself with my individual trades and who I rent to or buy/sell with, then why can’t the collective also have collective decisions about what foreign business it concerns itself with?

      Or, if that is not clear enough: If the government can stick its nose into my trades and who trespasses my border parcel, then it has every right to also decide if this murder is any of its business.

      1. WoW, Robespierre, you must have a tough time understanding discussions taking place around you.

  18. The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, would consider a person’s gender to be tied to the sex organs possessed at birth?meaning that the government would now ignore the wishes of trans men and women.

    I think we all know the preferred solution here.

    1. Venus Plus X ?

    2. “Genital mutilation for all!”

    3. It is more accurate to say that the Trump administration is trying to exclude gender as the category being protected under Title IX, rather than sex.

      It is extremely dishonest after saying for years that gender is different from sex to now say they mean the same thing when it might exclude gender from protected class status.

      1. It is different, but there is no good reason to exclude one from protected class status and leave the other included.

        1. That the legislation does so differentiate is the issue. Bureaucrats don’t get to change legislation on a whim.

        2. There is not? Why?

          Why don’t you propose amending the Title IX law by legislative process rather than reading into it language that is not there?

          1. Because democracy is for chumps!

        3. It is different, but there is no good reason to exclude one from protected class status and leave the other included.

          I would say that your being born with a set of genes is not your fault in a way that your demanding everyone pretend you are something other than what you actually are is. Your body is a product of your genes. Claiming you are the other sex is a mental disorder. The two things are entirely different.

      2. One of the fundamentals of Title IX was dividing people up into “Boys and Girls’.

      3. It is extremely dishonest after saying for years that gender is different from sex to now say they mean the same thing when it might exclude gender from protected class status.

        This is the running gimmick.

        When the law says you can’t discriminate for or against based upon a state of being, that state of being doesn’t exist and is just a pattern of behavior. When the law prosecutes people for patterns of behavior, it’s a state of being that cannot be discriminated against.

        We went through this with homosexuality; whether it was a behavior and under one’s control or whether it was a state of being exempt from discrimination. In order to get all the benefits and none of the consequences, the answer was deemed ‘both’ and the issue was relegated to idiotic lines of reasoning obsessed about by old people. This is how they get to have their cake and eat it too.

        1. Gender is a Social Construct! & Born this Way!
          Coherent stances are for bigots.

    4. Is it the Final Solution, though?

    5. To reduce the role of federal agencies like HHS in our daily lives to the point this becomes meaningless even on a symbolic level?

  19. “due to legacy admissions, athletic recruits, and race-based preferences for black and Latino students, Asians represent just 18 percent of the student body.”

    One of these things is not like the others – athletics is a skill, being a legacy or a member of a particular race is a matter of ancestry.

    1. Some aspects of athletics are not skills. Take Running fast and jumping high. They are the two most overrated attributes of athleticism, and they are not “skills.”

      Diagnosing the defense in a pre-snap read, processing such information, and then making the right call at the line of scrimmage, otoh, is a skill and is far more athletic.

      1. The same can said of intellectual capacity. The purpose of schooling is to hone inborn talent.

      2. Take Running fast and jumping high. They are the two most overrated attributes of athleticism, and they are not “skills.”

        That is just not true. Yes, your ceiling and floor for those things is set by genes. But, lots of people can run fast or jump high. To compete doing those things at even a collegiant level requires a tremendous amount of work and skill at the technique.

        1. John, do you really think that simply running fast or jumping high should be viewed in the same light as Brady or Breeze of Manning coming to the ling of scrimmage, diagnosing the defense, making a pre-snap read, processing all of that information and then making the right decision and delivering the football to a receiver?

          Of course, when it comes to competing in a given sprint, simply running fast is not all there is to it; but, as attributes of athleticism, simply running fast and jumping high, are way overrated. In fact, the use of the words, “athleticism” or “athlete,” too often refers to things like straight ahead running speed and straight-up jumping and I posit that such a conception of athleticism is misguided and tends to overlook so many other attributes. Yes, I think Brady, Breeze, Rogers and Manning doing their pre-snap reads, processing all of the information, and then making a good decision with regard to the play they run is far more impressive than being a “speed burner” or a “leaper.”

          1. I would argue that the mental aspect to all sports is highly underrated. The ability to maintain your technique throughout an entire sprint even though your body is tired is a mental ability just as much as seeing a defense. There are tons of people with freakish physical gifts who never become elite athletes because they lack the mental acuity required. And that doesn’t mean they are dumb by conventional standards. The mental accuity to be a great athlete is different than the mental accuity we normally see as intelligence.

          2. You are kind of undermining your own point. At one time Brady, et al, were just bundles of raw talent. Their coaches at their schools taught them the fundamentals of diagnosing plays. Schools are for developing talent, not for developed talent.

          3. Breeze of Manning

            If this were a cologne I would not buy it.

            1. +1 for the scent

      3. “Diagnosing the defense in a pre-snap read, processing such information, and then making the right call at the line of scrimmage, otoh, is a skill and is far more athletic.”

        100% wrong. It’s intellectual but it isn’t athletic.

        “Take Running fast and jumping high. They are the two most overrated attributes of athleticism,”

        It is impossible to overrate running fast and jumping high. Especially when the athletic event involves running fast and jumping high.

        1. So, what is between the ears can not be part of the athletic realm?

          Why are you swallowing that which was spoon fed to you?

          Why are you not considering that which contradicts that which was spoon fed to you?

          1. Stephen Hawking might read defenses better than Tom Brady, but he ain’t no athlete. There is athleticism and there is intelligence. Sometimes you get both in one package and you get a great “athlete”. But the athleticism is the physical side. Speed, strength, coordination.

            1. ^ This. Maybe a more relatable analogy… Andy Reid could probably read a defense and adjust a play call at the line of scrimmage as well as or better than any quarterback in the league. It is (lack of) athletic ability that keeps Andy Reid on the sidelines.

              1. There is a difference between knowing and doing. Reid could see the defense but even if he had the body of his 23 year old QB, it is doubtful he could excute what he saw. There is such a thing as athletic intelligence. And it is the ability to translate knowlege into physical action almost immediately without any conscious thought. I would argue it is that ability which seperates great athletes from average or just good ones more than natural physical gifts.

                1. Yes, there is a difference between knowing and doing. There is also a difference between knowing and doing it one way and knowing and doing it another, less effective, less immpressive way.

                  Applying that to Andy Reid, let’s assume he knows. He might be able to execute what he thinks needs to be done, its just that he can’t execute it the way in which Patrick Mahomes or Brady or Brett Favre could do it, i.e., with the same accuracy in his throw or with the ability to side-step an on-rushing lineman or blitzing linebacker.

      4. Some aspects of athletics are not skills. Take Running fast and jumping high. They are the two most overrated attributes of athleticism, and they are not “skills.”

        By your metrics, intelligence isn’t a skill either. If you think you can completely deny your intellect and compete with Usain Bolt, you’re a hyper-reductionist moron. And I’m leaning towards that because there are loads of people who can read a defense and make the right call at the line of scrimmage faster than Brady, Breeze, Manning, etc. They’re usually coaches and couldn’t possibly physically execute on the information they’ve processed, but they are as good or better at it as the QBs executing and that, in no way, makes them athletes. Jerry Miculek will read, identify, and hit 10 targets in the time it takes Brady, Breeze, Manning, etc. to hit one. I wouldn’t say Jerry is more athletic than Breeze or Manning.

        1. Reading defenses and processing information and then making a good decision constitutes an application and development of intelligence. It is not just raw intelligence.

          1. Reading defenses and processing information and then making a good decision constitutes an application and development of intelligence. It is not just raw intelligence.

            Sure. Fantastic applications of highly developed intelligence aren’t intrinsically athletic or necessarily skillful.

  20. Every libertarian should be donating to the ACLU. (Provided, of course, this terrible Drumpf economy has left you with any extra money.)

    Make no mistake: The lawsuit against Harvard that’s purported to represent the interests of Asian-American students would primarily benefit white students if successful.

    I learned in college that all opposition to affirmative action amounts to support for white supremacy. It doesn’t matter if people try to dress it up in concern for Asian Americans’ admissions chances. If you oppose affirmative action, you might as well wear white sheets, because you’re a racist. Straight up.

    This attack on diversity also highlights the importance of voting for Democrats, who as the anti-racist party are more supportive of affirmative action. We libertarians should want to see more RBG-style justices, not dangerous right-wing extremists like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

    #LibertariansForAffirmativeAction

    1. “Make no mistake: The lawsuit against Harvard that’s purported to represent the interests of Asian-American students would primarily benefit white students if successful.”

      Horrors!

      There’s always a caucasian in the woodpile, isn’t there?

      1. In a relentlessly white supremacist society like the US, “helping white people” only reinforces existing structures of institutional racism. It should be the goal of the progressive / libertarian alliance to dismantle those structures.

        #BlackLivesMatter

      2. Oh Eddy, how can you not see the sarcasm and parody in that post?

        1. I know…it’s OBL. I was responding to the distinctly non-sarcastic post he quoted from the ACLU.

    2. I learned in college that ….

      So you didn’t go to college to get an education?

      1. This is one of OBL’s favorite lines and also one of the biggest clues that he’s a prog parody. It’s at college that progs learn all their best talking points.

        The derp of progressives is the best thing going for those who oppose them.

        Therefore, by representing peak derp, OBL is destroying the Prog house from within.

        Does everyone get it now?

        Carry on, OBL, faithful soldier.

  21. The Trump administration is considering an approach to anti-discrimination law that would define gender as “biological and immutable,” according to The New York Times. The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, would consider a person’s gender to be tied to the sex organs possessed at birth?meaning that the government would now ignore the wishes of trans men and women.

    Making policies based on feelings is an inherently stupid idea. No wonder Robby is on board.

    1. Think about how far off we’ve gone. We have to remind people of biological facts.

      Up here the government basically says if you tell your three-year old you’ll grow out of your gender crisis it’s tantamount to ‘cruelty’. I believe it’s even in a law now (I forget. The Liberals are such left-wing ideologues I can’t keep up). Even though it’s widely accepted in the medical/psych profession kids do mostly grow out of this confusion. So if you try to prevent your kid from having surgery, the government can in effect stop you. Basically, in their ‘compassionate’ plea they’re ignoring scientific (biological) fact. How’s that for ‘I fucking love science!”

      Someone has to reverse this perverse trend.

      1. The fact that the government has to say that you have to actually be a woman to claim that you were discriminated against because of being a woman shows how far off the rails the left and the media class have gone. How can this be controversial? These people are insane.

    2. Exactly right. The government should force everyone to adhere to the government’s standards for self-determination. Amirite?

      1. If they want the government to come and punish their employer, yes. You can do whatever you want, you just can’t demand the government force everyone to play along with it.

      2. If you wish to make me financially support the government to correct previous wrongs, then yes, you must have proof of your claims.

        If the government is going to force schools to insure girls have plenty of slots as athletes to the point where men’s sports are shut down to keep the ratios correct — then, yes, they have to make sure girls are the ones participating.

        1. Who defines what a “girl” is for the purposes of athletics or sexual discrimination?

          Sexual discrimination against women occurred in the past not because of chromosomes per se, but because of the gender roles that men and women were expected to play. I.e., it didn’t matter what chromosomes I had, if I presented myself as a man, or as a woman, then I was expected (and still am expected, to a degree) to play the gendered role associated with that presentation. So, e.g., women were expected to be in the home baking cookies and raising children, even if they had the ‘wrong’ chromosomes.

          So why wouldn’t someone who had the ‘wrong’ chromosomes, who presented him/herself as the opposite gender, be subject to the same discrimination as someone who had the ‘right’ chromosomes and presented him/herself as the same gender?

          1. So why wouldn’t someone who had the ‘wrong’ chromosomes, who presented him/herself as the opposite gender, be subject to the same discrimination as someone who had the ‘right’ chromosomes and presented him/herself as the same gender?

            Is it discriminatory when male athletes emulsify female athletes in competitions where physical ability is supreme?

          2. Which is it sexual discrimination or gender discrimination? One is not the other as progs have been telling us for decades.

            The law calls for the end of one and you want to play it both ways, but then progs always argue in bad faith so why should I be surprised.

          3. Who defines what a “girl” is for the purposes of athletics or sexual discrimination?

            XX chromosomes or possession of a natural vagina. That would cover 99.9999% of all women right there.

            So why wouldn’t someone who had the ‘wrong’ chromosomes, who presented him/herself as the opposite gender, be subject to the same discrimination as someone who had the ‘right’ chromosomes and presented him/herself as the same gender?

            So, this is a “serious” question, eh?

          4. “So why wouldn’t someone who had the ‘wrong’ chromosomes, who presented him/herself as the opposite gender, be subject to the same discrimination as someone who had the ‘right’ chromosomes and presented him/herself as the same gender?”

            Because there is literally a physical difference between the two genders and they are not capable of the same things. Your “gender-roles” point works with masculine and feminine activities in a culture, but means nothing to objective, unbiased biology.

  22. But the proposed policy seems gratuitously cruel toward trans people. There’s nothing desirable about the government forcing people to identify as their discarded birth sex.

    Sure. Let’s just ignore rights to privacy et al because somebody feels different today. Perfectly logical.

    Cruelty is humoring delusions,

    1. Dictating others what their gender is is the right to privacy?

      1. I give no fucks about anybody’s privacy.

        But given that idiots want to conflate “gender” and “sex”, that is THEIR problem.

        If you think you’re a woman, go nuts. You don’t get to use a woman’s restroom because, in the end, you, are. not. a. woman.

    2. Cruelty is humoring delusions,

      Your positions on recent expansion of “religious liberty;” accreditation of schools that teach nonsense and suppress science to flatter childish dogma; and keeping “under God” in the pledge must be fascinating.

  23. “We need, in a sense, to keep both sides in mind, simultaneously,” he said. “Both consciousnesses seem necessary. ‘I am allowed to [appropriate], but it’s damnably hard to do well.'”

    So, from whom did Prof. Davies appropriate *that* quote?

  24. US general shot but not killed in Taliban attack in Afghanistan, Pentagon confirms

    US Military deaths Afghanistan:
    2016- 14
    2017- 15
    2018 – 8

  25. Police Body Camera Bursts Into Flames; New York Pulls 2,990 From Use

    If the NYPD would not Terry Pat Down people so vigorously.

    1. Now, *that* is capitalizing on a “malfunction”!

    2. Or stop putting the cameras in the microwave.

    3. The officer was wearing the body camera during a midnight shift in the 121st Precinct on the northwestern shore of Staten Island when he noticed smoke coming from the bottom of the device late Saturday night, according to the Police Department. He was not injured when the body camera exploded, the police said.

      He’s lucky “He’s got a bomb on his chest and he’s coming right for us!” isn’t the last phrase he ever heard.

  26. There’s nothing desirable about the government forcing people to identify as their discarded birth sex.

    Or forcing people to do almost anything, really.

    1. discarded birth sex

      lol. W.T.F.?

  27. Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Fox News “the murder” had been a “tremendous mistake”

    “We meant for it to be just a maiming.”

    1. That remains to be seen. In six months, the murder will be forgotten, Saudi will still have all that oil and be the major counterweight to Iran, and that guy will still be dead.

      I doubt it will turn out to be a mistake at all much less a serious one.

    2. Next spin: It was an Honor Killing.

      1. “Yeah …. *that’s* the ticket!”

    1. Is it okay if its chocolate or is that cultural appropriation?

      1. You’re asking if it would be OK for a white man to literally consume brown stuff? I LITERALLY CAN’T EVEN RIGHT NOW…

    2. “Some people might be surprised to learn that cows used by the dairy industry are slaughtered after about five years because their bodies are so spent from being kept constantly pregnant,”

      “unlike women in third-world baby farms.”

      1. 5 years sounds about right for slaughtering cows.

      2. Some people are painfully ignorant and have silly romantic notions.

  28. http://arstechnica.com/cars/20…..0-model-3/

    Tesla quietly drops full driving option from Model 3. Self driving cars are going to be the jet packs of the 21st Century; forever next year’s technology.

  29. Clemson University: Floor collapse injures 30 in South Carolina

    The Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity annual homecoming party was just getting started when the floor gave way.

    “The beat was about to drop and literally the whole floor collapsed,”

  30. Whether all schools are obligated to accommodate the exact demands of gender dysphoric youngsters is a delicate question, and one that existing law is poorly equipped to answer.

    And Trump is saving untold millions in lawsuits and time spent dealing with it by doing this.

  31. Black ‘reverse migration’ driving Atlanta and Georgia towards Democrats
    Fulton County where Atlanta is located has been blue and Democrat for years.

    I wonder what Tony and Buttplugger would say about Southern racist white people if it suddenly went Democrat? Georgia cannot be racist and Democrat according to Lefties.

    1. Every place the Demcorats rule is either entirely white, black but decaying, or mixed but getting whiter every year. Meanwhile millions of blacks are moving from areas run by Democrats to areas run by Republicans. Yet, it is the Republicans who are the RACIST

    2. #StaywithStacey

    3. The last time Georgia went Democratic in presidential election was in 1992.

  32. uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.”

    That is an oh so Republican way of thinking … totally disregarding the use of feelings in the definition and using only facts

  33. “There’s nothing desirable about the government forcing people to identify as their discarded birth sex.”

    I’m pretty sure you’re thinking of gender. This is why identity politics is so full of it. They can’t even keep the bullshit terminology consistent.

    1. discarded birth sex

      Nice band name.

      1. I for one can’t wait for their debut album, Botched Sex Change. Or their first single Mutilated Genitals.

        1. I think Mutilated Genitals might be the bette band name.

          1. You could switch all three around between band name, album name, and song name.

            E.g., “don’t miss Mutilated Genitals’ debut album Discarded Birth Sex and their hit single Botched Sex Change.”

            Just switch them around as you see fit… wait…

    2. Seriously, if my dl says my sex is “female” I can still identify as the “male” gender. That was supposed to be the whole point of making those terms distinct to gender issues people. Instead they now just switch back and forth between defining the terms differently or the same depending on what allows them to be the most offended

      1. You’ll have to speak up, lap. Today I’m identifying as “hearing impaired”.

    3. Why does “identifying” as a man or a woman restrict your freedom? You can be a man and wear a dress or call yourself by a femine name or act like a woman in any way you please. Why is it so important what anyone else thinks?

      1. They are like teenagers… “But mom! Why won’t you buy me the clothes to look like everyone else! You never let me do anything!” grownups have a hard time understanding those priorities or why they should care

        1. Yes. The whole thing is amazingly infintile.

          1. Resembling infinity?

            1. No. Infantile. Good catch.

  34. “There’s nothing desirable about the government forcing people to identify as their discarded birth sex. ”

    This sentence is pure bullshit. This would not result in any restriction on anybody identifying any way they please.

  35. Reason has slid so far.

    1. ENB is happy to take credit for all of our work here in the comments.

      1. What are you going to do if Stacey wins?

        1. Stacey Abrams is not winning as governor.

          Obama did not carry Georgia either.

          There are just not enough socialists nor enough black SIVs in Georgia to give her the win.

  36. Whether all schools are obligated to accommodate the exact demands of gender dysphoric youngsters is a delicate question

    with a short answer.

  37. But the proposed policy seems gratuitously cruel toward trans people. There’s nothing desirable about the government forcing people to identify as their discarded birth sex.
    One can no more discard their identity as a human then they can their biological sex. To pretend otherwise is to indulge in the wishes of people who need psychological help.

    Of course, the rational thing for the government to do would be to make no legal distinction between men and woman, and treat every human being equally under law. It should be of no relevance to the government if one is a man or woman – and if it IS relevant, then the government is managing something it should not be (like restroom classifications.)

  38. Except for genuine borderline cases (intersex and the like), this trans thing is a case of feelz versus feelz. People who think they’re another sex feel bad if they’re not validated, and people using the bathroom or undressing in a locker room feel embarrassed and awkward to have someone of the other sex around them.

    So we can either mobilize on the basis of “my feelz are more valid than yours,” or we can resolve the “problem” by looking at the actual language of the statute, and plain ordinary horse sense.

    1. This is one of the most hateful, bigoted, science-denying comments I’ve ever read on this website. I cannot believe there are still people who think this way. It’s 2018!

      1. Eddy is usually pretty good at hiding his seething hatred for science and humankind, but now it has all come out

    2. So we can either mobilize on the basis of “my feelz are more valid than yours,” or we can resolve the “problem” by looking at the actual language of the statute, and plain ordinary horse sense.

      That is exactly it. People on this board and the reason staff act like someone feeling uncomfortable showering with or using the same bathroom as someone whom they consider the opposite sex are unworthy of consideration yet those who are trans and feel uncomfortable being held to their biological sex are worthy of consideration. It is really just a question of whose interests should win out; the trans or those who don’t buy into them being something other than their genes. Why those who reject that should be treated the same way society treats racists is something the reason staff never bothers to explain other than to say they like trans and think everyone else should be required to as well.

    3. I think this entire episode demonstrates why the state getting involved in anti-discrimination in the first place is so foolhardy.

  39. Important message from the United Nations Migration Agency.

    With 244 million people on the move, migration is inevitable, necessary, and desirable

    If all goes well in 2019, Robert Mueller will submit his final report on #TrumpRussia to the #BlueTsunami Congress and the white nationalist Kremlin asset will be impeached. When Democrats are back in control, we’ll have a government more sympathetic to the Koch / Reason immigration agenda. I can’t wait!

    #OpenBorders
    #LibertariansForTheUN

    1. But that’s just a tweet. Where’s the moral case for immigration or emigration?

      I’ve made the moral and economic case many times, to the point where Trumpistas(*) everywhere accuse me of being a “leftist”.

      The moral case: Every person has a right to move, to travel. It is a direct consequence of our right to liberty. This doesn’t mean people have a right to lodging or to a job or to someone else’s property. Making the connection between the two things is not only evidence of intellectual impropriety but of frank dishonesty. Some (Trumpistas, mostly) conflate migration with refugee displacement. The two things are NOT the same.

      The economic case: Labor is ALWAYS productive. The MORE labor you have available, the BETTER, because it increases two factors sine qua non for economic development and growth: Division of Labor, and Specialization. Migration is a MARKET PHENOMENON. People are INVITED INTO the US by Americans who want to hire them, rent to them, buy from them, sell to them and even marry them. By imposing itself on these peaceful and voluntary transactions, the government engages in economic central planning for the benefit of a few, to the detriment of the economic actors engaging in those trades.

      (*)Economically-ignorant and bigoted buffoons with a penchant for minding to facile arguments about how great they can become if the rest of people, especially brown people, acquiesced to their awesomeness-by-birthright.

      1. accuse me of being a “leftist”.

        The term “leftist” on the right is often used similar to how the term “racist” or “fascist” is used on the left – just as a general-purpose insult, devoid of meaning. Basically, “you’re a doody-head”. It doesn’t actually mean adherence to left-wing politics, just like those left-wingers hurling around the accusation of fascist actually believes that their targets are adherents of Nazi ideology.

        1. DON’T actually believe their targets are Nazis, that is

        2. I use “leftist” because it is far more accurate than “liberal” or “progressive.”

        3. Nazis are leftists.

      2. (*)Economically-ignorant and bigoted buffoons with a penchant for minding to facile arguments about how great they can become if the rest of people, especially brown people, acquiesced to their awesomeness-by-birthright.

        It’s a shame that their birth countries don’t recognize their awesomeness-by-birthright. Maybe, if we get enough people mixed together, all disregarding each other’s birthrights, we’ll somehow wind up more free. After all, if it’s one thing I hear repeated throughout economics, it’s not how brutally efficient markets are or can be, but how respectful of birth and other rights they are.

        1. Mexican is a flat out racist who thinks Hispanics are genetically superior to the lazy native born Americans. He explains Latin America being such a shit hole by the magic dirt theory.

          Mexican is really that stupid and irrational these days. He was never that bright to begin with. But Trump has pushed him over the edge that much.

  40. I do think it is important for people to know one’s genetic sex for a lot of practical purposes. It is a tricky subject.

  41. “The Trump Administration might Axe Title IX Protections”

    Ax them some questions?

  42. For those interested:

    I hate to admit it, but Lizzie the Liar actually got the better of Geoff Diehl in Friday’s senatorial debate. It was very disappointing, but Diehl simply did not articulate a sufficiently coherent, forceful alternative to Warren. Yes, he did score some points, but he was quasi cuckish.

  43. “What each of these inequalities shares is a power dynamic. It’s more charged, more loaded for a man to write about a woman,” the professor told the audience, “because of a history of chauvinism, harassment, and yes, rape. It’s more loaded for a white to write of a person of color because of histories of discrimination, colonialism, and yes, slavery.”

    Receptionist: How do you write women so well?

    Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

  44. The Trump administration is considering an approach to anti-discrimination law that would define gender as “biological and immutable,” according to The New York Times.

    No, it defines “sex,” which is the term used in the statute, and which we’re constantly told is not the same thing as gender (except when it’s convenient to pretend otherwise). Does anyone think that Congress in 1972 used the term “sex” to mean anything other than men and women?

    But the proposed policy seems gratuitously cruel toward trans people. There’s nothing desirable about the government forcing people to identify as their discarded birth sex. If the government attempts to override individual choice and identity, that negates self-ownership.

    Then pass a law, don’t pretend that the 1972 Congress did anything more than prohibit discrimination based on sex.

    1. The terms are the same when cis-nazis want to define sex for practical purposes. They are different when someone wants assistance paying for a sex change.

    2. +1

      That is exactly what they are doing. And they are right to do so. If ENB and the rest of reason wants to protect trans from discrimination, change the law.

      1. Oh c’mon. Democracy is so passe.

    3. “The Trump administration is considering an approach to anti-discrimination law that would define gender as “biological and immutable,” according to The New York Times.”

      We’re talking about a memo with something under consideration, not something that’s actually happened or necessarily will?

      If there were a wolf every time the New York Times cries, the flock would be gone, and we’d all be going to hell in a handbasket by now.

      There must be an election in two weeks or something.

    4. “The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, would consider a person’s gender to be tied to the sex organs possessed at birth?meaning that the government would now ignore the wishes of trans men and women.”

      It’s hard to believe that right here–in the United States of America–someone from the Department of Health and Human Services would leak a memo like that to the New York Times ahead of a midterm election–just because they don’t like Trump–isn’t it?

      No, not really.

    5. “Sex and gender are not the same thing except when they are”

      1. The game that woketarians are playing here- demanding that government re-imagine existing legislation (rather than actually passing new legislation to satisfy their pet cause) is pretty blatant progressivism masquerading as libertarianism. There is absolutely nothing small government about having bureaucrats reinterpret legislation and create carve-outs to cover groups that you are sympathetic for. That’s just straight-up progressivism.

  45. Which is why “we” need a wall ? to hide ourselves from the effects of our same policies.

    Report Shows U.N.’s Anti-Drug Strategy Is a Dismal Failure.

    The report [by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC)] claims that UN efforts to eliminate the illegal drug market by 2019 through a “war on drugs” approach has had scant effect on global supply while having negative effects on health, human rights, security and development.

    According to the report, drug-related deaths have increased by 145% over the last decade, with more than 71,000 overdose deaths in the United States in 2017 alone. At least 3,940 people were executed for drug offenses around the world over the last 10 years, while drug crackdowns in the Philippines resulted in around 27,000 extrajudicial killings.
    […]
    The report also said that 33 jurisdictions retain the death penalty for drug offenses in violation of international standards. However in March, US President Donald Trump proposed making drug trafficking a capital offense in response to the country’s ongoing opioid crisis.

    Leave it to DJT to completely miss the point when it comes to prohibitions and why they breed black markets.

  46. The migrant caravan that was stranded at the southern Mexican border made it across the river in small groups and then reconstituted itself. It’s now heading north again. There were questions on Friday about organization and logistics.

    “Once the migrants were in Tecun Uman, Mr. L?pez became one of the key leaders, organizing logistics. He is an antiestablishment social activist who belongs to U.S.-Mexico nonprofit People Without Frontiers, whose goal “is to build solidarity bridges among peoples and turndown border walls imposed by greed,” according to its website.

    The nonprofit has been organizing migrant caravans each year since at least 2008.”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ca….._lead_pos9

    That’s who’s behind this.

    Apparently, they model these caravans on local traditions like “The Stations of the Cross”, in which someone feels inspired to build a large cross and carry it like Jesus did on a pilgrimage. The penitent will sometimes join such a pilgrimage, and the locals will spontaneously support such people with water, food, etc. It’s like a Central American mitzvah. The symbolism is powerful, too. If and when the Mexican government intervenes and deports these people, they’ll be violating some serious taboos. Kicking puppies might be more popular with local Mexicans.

    1. And so – what? People don’t have a right to migrate? They haven’t reached the US border and yet Trumpistas are tying their knickers in a knot. Why?

      Has it occurred to you that the de facto prohibition imposed on migration which is the result of the Byzantine immigration laws and the almost-full discretion given to immigration officials only serves to provide ammunition to those NGO’s to embarrass the DJT administration?

      1. Don’t blame me, I voted for Fruit Sushi!

        Actually, I didn’t vote for anybody.

        Regardless, I’m just reporting the facts. This is likely to be the last big issue ahead of the midterms–whether you like it or not. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out–regardless of what you think I think about anything.

        1. There’s plenty of time for at least 2 more big issues ahead of the midterms. The outrage machine never sleeps

        2. There’s plenty of time for at least 2 more big issues ahead of the midterms. The outrage machine never sleeps

          1. The squirrels have provided placeholders for prophesies of the next 2 big issues

      2. No they don’t have a right to migrate. It is really that simple. And the people who are telling them they do are just using them for cheap political theater.

        1. At the point where you’re moving explicitly for a political purpose and no other reason, it’s no longer migration.

          Coming to the US because drug lords might kill you and take your children is one thing. Coming to the US because you hear it’s a land of freedom and opportunity and you’d like to partake in and contribute to freedom and opportunity is another thing. Coming to the US because a group of socialists hell-bent on undermining the government, democracy, and the rule of law paid you to is not migration.

          The conventional name for ‘acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically’ is called colonialism.

          1. Someone put it well last week, when your hoards of people are waving the flags of the country they came from, which these people are, that is not a migration, that is colonization.

          2. If their home country is so dangerous, you’d think a group of 5,000-8,000 people would be large enough to band together and form their own community for self-protection, not travel north to leech off of the world’s greatest welfare system.

            But sure, we should keep hearing how these people are “natural conservatives”. Well, I guess they are, in the sense that they have no qualms about displaying their own nationalism and ethnocentrism.

      3. “People don’t have a right to migrate?”

        In violation of the national sovereignty of the country they are trying to migrate to? Nope. They don’t have that right.

    2. Nobody in that group of migrants is going to rape your daughter. Stop being such a pickle-brained GOP propaganda victim. It’s sad to watch and we’re all tired of it.

      1. Nobody in that group of migrants is going to rape your daughter.

        And you know that how? You don’t. You are just emoting and assuming that they are all wonderful people because doing so is necessary to further your absurd political religion.

        1. So you actually think that one of these 7,000 refugees might actually rape your daughter. And you also think that exploiting these people as a political prop to evoke racist, xenophobic lizard-brain reactions in order to get people to vote to maintain power for a right-wing political party is, what, not happening?

          1. “So you actually think that one of these 7,000 refugees might actually rape your daughter”

            No, it’s that you cannot possibly know that, and when that is pointed out to you, your response is exceptionally stupid.

            “And you also think that exploiting these people as a political prop to evoke racist, xenophobic lizard-brain reactions in order to get people to vote to maintain power for a right-wing political party is, what, not happening?”

            Like that.

        2. Tony already has cuts on his arm from cutting himself.

          It has been a stressful 21+ months since Trump took office and this election will be a Democrat bloodbath.

          For Tony, a cut a day keeps the truth away.

        3. Well, we know they aren’t rapists because we’re pretty sure they will vote Democrat. Duh

      2. Nobody in that group of migrants is going to rape your daughter.

        You know their mostly Catholic, right?

        1. Shit, nobody said anything about clergy being among them.

  47. I’ll see your “Cow’s milk is a symbol of white supremacy, PETA claims” and counter with:

    Study finds surprising number of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows

    (WCMH) – According to a recent survey, seven percent of Americans believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows.

    The survey was conducted by the Innovation Center of US Dairy in April. 1,000 adults 18 and over were asked questions about the role milk plays in their daily lives, Food & Wine reported.

    The study found 48% of respondents weren’t sure where chocolate milk came from. Seven percent thought chocolate milk only comes from brown cows.

    That adds up to about 16.4 million people, more than the population of Ohio.

    1. Only seven percent enjoy trolling survey takers? That seems low

      1. 48% not sure where it comes from? I’m surprised 7% isn’t more like 20%.

    2. How now brown cow?

  48. Reason naturally has been completely ignoring it, but all these disgusting members of Fusion GPS like Glenn Simpson and the Ohrs have been invoking the fifth amendment to avoid incriminating themselves for their nefarious involvement in Operation Crossfire Hurricane.

  49. The FBI admits using multiple ‘confidential human sources’ to spy on the Trump campaign.

    In an FBI filing on Friday, submitted by David M. Hardy, the head of the FBI’s Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS), in response to a FOIA request, the FBI admitted to using multiple confidential human sources (CHSs) to spy on the Trump Campaign. You may be thinking that we already know this. We do. The significance of this filing is that the FBI is acknowledging this information publicly for the first time.

    It’s about time to start indicting some of these Operation Crossfire Hurricane criminals.

  50. The right of self-determination does not apply to sex. It applies only to Israel. And if you disagree you are ANTISEMITIC.

    1. You can’t “self-determine” what genitals you were born with

      1. “Sex and gender are not the same thing except when they are”

        Is basically what this nonsense argument boils down to

  51. US decision to withdraw from Cold War-era nuke treaty draws rebuke from Russia

    Wait…. I thought Trump was the Manchurian Candidate? How does this HELP Russia again?

    1. Pssst. Russia’s goal was not to make America great again via Donald Trump.

      1. “My wacky conspiracy theory is collapsing so I’m going to go with- this is six dimensional chess being played by Putin and baddie Trump?”

        1. Before I respond, why don’t you give me your opinion on global warming?

          1. I’ll believe the Chicken Little prophesies of Global Warming when Al Gore starts selling his beach house

            1. So you’re dismissing a conspiracy theory involving one state actor and tons of evidence but endorsing one with no evidence that would require the complicity of every government and scientific organization on earth. See this is why you can’t be taken seriously about anything.

              1. “Watch me jump to conclusions and pretend as if there is evidence for something on which there is absolutely none”

                There is zero evidence to support your Russia fever dreams. You are sick and not fully rational at this juncture.

                And I don’t believe I said Global Warming was a conspiracy. I think that the insane prophesies are as legitimate as Peak Population was in the 70’s, meaning that they are not valid.

                1. The last resort of the conspiracy theorist is to distract from the fact that he is insane.

                  1. So is global warming the result of good science or is it all “insane prophesies”? One is a conspiracy theory and the other isn’t. You don’t get to mush-mouth your way through this. Science says what it says.

                    And are you going to dismiss the Mueller findings immediately upon release based on the fact that you have the impenetrably solid evidence that your vocabulary contains the phrase “fever dream,” or do you plan to actually try and find Donald Trump and offer to suck his cock?

                    1. I am not going to engage in this game where you distract from the fact that you are not mentally stable by throwing out insults and distractions.

                      You’re not well and I sincerely help that your mental state holds well enough for you to eventually conclude that you were duped by a CIA created conspiracy theory meant to ensure that the Trump administration continued the same bellicose foreign policy as his predecessors. And now that they have accomplished their goal, they have no more need for selective leaks and innuendo.

                      Congrats. You’re a dupe

                    2. Poor Tony cannot think straight with Hillary’s 10 inch cock in his mouth.

    2. Pshaw, that’s easy, he has to make an anti-Russian gesture to distract the public from his Putin-puppet status. Duh!

      1. Next he works out a private deal with Russia to have a limited nuclear exchange, just a little war to solidify Putin’s nationalist support while deluding Americans into thinking Trump is his own man.

        1. You know how a little background radiation kills off the weaker cells but makes the culture overall stronger? it’s like that except… well it’s like that.

  52. Funny how the media never cared much about Saudi human rights abuses until it was one of their own…

    1. Fact Check: True

      Here’s a clip of Wolf Blitzer talking with Rand Paul after Paul sponsored legislation to end weapon sales to Saudi Arabia. Note, this was before it became cool to want to end weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, which explains why Amash didn’t care to co-sponsor this legislation or the several others offered by Massi and Tulsi Gabbard for over a year.

      http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/watch…..s-profits/

      1. But… but… Republicans are the warmongers! When they say it’s moral position to oppose the slaughter of civilians, it’s really code for white power…

        #NPCme

  53. I’ve been lectured at relentlessly by progressives that sex is not gender. In that piece from NYT they seem to conflate sex and gender as convenient to push their narrative and Robby actually goes along with the lie without even a too be sure.

    Does he not even know what these words mean or is it just blind allegiance to progressive dogma?

    Sex is biological, gender is closer to societal roles traditionally related to sex and sexuality is anything else in that alphabet soup. Why should I care about anyone’s opinion if they can’t think straight enough to even get basic definitions close to correct.

    1. I have already noticed more younger folks in rich towns whose gender seems to be ambiguous, and I wonder how much of this might just be the latest teen rebellion trend, with the added advantage that being transgender certainly will give you an advantage when applying to elite colleges if you are an otherwise unremarkable candidate.

      1. Eh, ambiguous gender expression isn’t being trans, anyway.

        (See, say, the New Romantics back in the early ’80s.)

    2. Pretty sure historically gender was just another word for biological sex. You’re using the new definition presented to us by “academics” in gender studies trying to justify the existence of their research field.

      I mean, what, is the difference supposed to be that sex is “male vs. female” and gender is “man vs. woman”? Cause that seems stupid to me. “Man and woman” mean “male and female human” respectively, in the same way that we use “buck and doe” to mean “male and female deer” respectively. In either case, neither can be changed. A man may be more feminine than most, but he’s still a man. A woman may be more masculinity than most, but she’s still a woman. To suggest that a man can pursue feminine activities and that suddenly makes him a woman only REINFORCES gender roles, which is the opposite of the progressive mantra.

  54. The [Department of Health and Human Services] argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.”

    This statement by itself is perfectly reasonable.

    1. It is. The CRA was never intended to protect transwhatever you want to call them. It is there to protect against discrimination on the basis of biological sex and race. If you want to make trans a protected class, amend the damned statute.

      Note also how the wokeltarians once again walk away from any commitment to freedom of association in the name of “equality”. Last I looked, Libertarians objected to the CRA as a violation of the freeom of association. Yet, here is reason endorsing its expansion to cover a new protected class because said class is fashionable in the leftist circles the reason staff inhabit. When it comes to fashionable groups like gays and trans, no amount of otherwise bad laws are ever enough.

      1. Reason is mostly bad at libertarianing.

  55. likely don’t want anything tied to my sex organ, danke.

  56. The Trump Title IX memo is not only a draft from early 2017, with no evidence shown that it will ever be submitted, much less go into force. The NYT has not released the actual memo. That’s the biggest thing. We have been told just how horrible it is and the horrific side-effects, but we haven’t actually seen the memo, we have no idea who wrote it, and we have no idea if it will ever be more than a memo written by one person a while back.

    1. That is some top flight reporting there. The funny thing is that the majority of the country and certainly the vast majority of Republican voters agree with the memo as it is characterized by the NYT. So, they likely are helping Trump and the Republicans by claiming it is so “extreme” by their estimate. My guess is that the actual memo is likely much more tempered and if Republican voters saw it, they probably would think it didn’t go far enough. But the Times won’t release the memo and is just helping the Republicans by allowing their voters to think they are taking a hard stand on this issue. The media has become so far removed from reality, that I think their being shills for the Democrats has become a liability for the Democrats rather than a help.

      1. I completely ignore anything the Times and WaPo say about politics. A democrat dog catcher could be selling puppies to a Chinese restaurant and they would still endorse him.

  57. “There’s nothing desirable about the government forcing people to identify as their discarded birth sex. If the government attempts to override individual choice and identity, that negates self-ownership.”

    While I agree with that as stated, uh … aren’t we, in the larger context here, conflating “identify as” with “have the government call them/agree with their identification”?

    Let’s not just assume an obligation for others to agree with identity claims, as that’s a giant rabbit hole.

    (What practical effect does DHHS classification of gender actually have on anyone?

    I’m asking seriously, because I literally have no farkin’ idea what DHHS labeling decisions even affect, and no reporting, even Reason’s, is explaining what practical, rather than emotional, or purely theoretical or aspirational effect this will actually have on anyone.

    All the reporting has been “erasing identity” and – the worst of it – “this is what leads to dehumanization and genocide”.

    We’re why we can’t have nice things.)

  58. The government recognizing reality rather than “wishes”. Oh, the humanity.

  59. ALLEGEDLY discriminating against Asian-American applicants??

    LOL

  60. Look who’s supporting science and opposing ideology.

  61. They want to replace sex with gender on identification like passports.

    What is the point of identification characteristics that change whenever you want them to?

    Seriously, that’s what they want, logic need not apply.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.