Kansas lawmakers move to stop leftist transgenderism woke stupidity

mark francis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2021
Messages
17,155
Leftists support woke stupidity because other leftists support leftist woke stupidity. There is no other reason to support the nonsense and those who do support the nonsense should be ashamed of themselves.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...FEbbmfoPxLwXRBXGGxXvQCHeE&bt_ts=1677250241289

Books_Justice_Jackson_89829_c0-17-6000-3515_s885x516.jpg

Kansas kicks off push to define ‘woman,’ as red states seek to shield single-sex spaces
https://www.washingtontimes.com/

Then-Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson smiles on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 31, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is working on a memoir. Jackson, the first Black woman appointed to the court, is calling the book … more >

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Thursday, February 23, 2023

Legislators in red states are determined this year to do what Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson could not: provide a definition of the word “woman.”

The Kansas Senate on Thursday became the first chamber to pass the Women’s Bill of Rights, a measure that defines “woman” and “man” in state law. The distinction is central to the push to preserve single-sex areas such as public restrooms, school sports, prisons and shelters.

“What this does is simply codify in the law the definition of sex,” state Sen. Renee Erickson, a Republican, told The Washington Times.

The measure is opposed by transgender rights advocates, although Ms. Erickson stressed that “it does not deal with gender identity.”

“It simply says that in existing statute or law, where there is a definition of sex, it means biological male and female as determined at birth. That’s very factual, it’s very objective,” she said.

Under the bill, a person’s biological sex is determined at birth. “Female” is defined as someone “whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and “male” refers to those “whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”

Similar measures have been introduced this year in Oklahoma, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas. In South Carolina, the legislature is considering a joint resolution that would amend the state constitution to define sex as biological sex at birth.

Figuring out what “woman” means became a political hot potato last year after Justice Jackson said at her confirmation hearing that she couldn’t provide a definition. A few months later, conservative pundit Matt Walsh released his documentary “What Is a Woman?” mocking the gender identity movement.

Ms. Erickson called Senate Bill 180 “a commonsense approach to this issue,” but Kansas Democrats clearly disagree.

The legislation passed on a party-line vote of 26-10 with no Democratic support. Senate Democrats blasted the measure as “another bill targeting trans Kansans.” They noted that legislators also advanced measures banning gender transition procedures for minors and biological males from female scholastic sports.

“This is part of a national push to put biologically essentialist language in statute so that legislators have [a] basis to ban trans people from public spaces,” Kansas Senate Democrats said in a statement on Twitter.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the bill “codifies into law a right to exclude transgender people based on outdated and inaccurate definitions of sex and families.”

Kansas state Sen. Pat Pettey, a Democrat, took issue with the measure’s name as the Women’s Bill of Rights.

“As we heard in committee, it might be better if we were talking about the things that would help women’s rights, and that would be equity in pay, access to child care, and considering our human rights being balanced between men and women,” she said on the Senate floor. “I think this is poor legislation, unnecessary and does nothing to talk about women’s rights.”

In case you were concerned that #ksleg politicians had come up with this themselves, have no fear: this is part of a national push to put biologically essentialist language in statute so that legislators have basis to ban trans people from public spaces. https://t.co/J9DyiJ6ChR

— Kansas Senate Democrats (@kssenatedems) February 22, 2023

The Women’s Bill of Rights was conceived last year as model legislation by two groups at opposite ends of the political spectrum: the conservative Independent Women’s Voice and the left-wing Women’s Liberation Front.

They may agree on little else, but both are alarmed by the growing campaign to allow biological males into sex-segregated female spaces based on gender identity in the name of transgender rights.

Jennifer C. Braceras, director of the Independent Women’s Law Center, the legal advocacy arm of the Independent Women’s Forum and Independent Women’s Voice, said the bill doesn’t change the law but rather “freezes it in place.”

“It codifies the current constitutional jurisprudence and the intermediate scrutiny standard that we’ve all come to rely on to protect women’s rights, but also to recognize that there are certain situations in which men and women can be separated without violating the constitution,” she said. “Bathrooms, prisons, sports, domestic-violence shelters, etc.”

At the same time, the bill doesn’t prevent the Legislature from passing anti-discrimination measures protecting people who identify as the opposite sex in areas such as employment.

“If Kansas wanted to pass a law to protect trans-identified people from discrimination in the workplace, for example, Kansas could do that,” Ms. Braceras said. “The Women’s Bill of Rights, by clarifying the definition of sex in existing law, prevents unelected judges or administrative bureaucrats from changing the meaning of words without the consent of the governed.”

The American Civil Liberties Union said the bill is “essentially attempting to remove trans people from athletics, restrooms, locker rooms, domestic violence shelters, and other necessary spaces,” but Ms. Erickson argued that it is appropriate in many cases.

“There are legitimate reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to prisons, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers and other areas where safety and privacy are needed,” she said. “This bill does not create any new rights or entitlements. It simply codifies the definition of sex as biological male and female in existing statutes and laws.”

The bill is expected to clear the Republican-controlled House but not the desk of Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat. The governor, who was reelected in November, previously vetoed two bills that would have banned male-born competitors who identify as female from girls’ sports.

“We do have a Democratic governor, and we fully expect that she will veto this bill, which just goes to show her extreme position on this,” Ms. Erickson said. “It does not reflect the majority of the people of Kansas. The people want this. It’s common sense. It’s the right thing to do.”

Supporters of the legislation hope Ms. Kelly listens to the voters. The Independent Women’s Forum said a poll commissioned by the group found that 80% of Kansas respondents “think it is important that Kansas pass a law to define sex-based terms,” including “man,” “woman,” “female” and “male.”

The poll also found that 86% of Kansas respondents “believe single-sex spaces should be preserved where safety or fairness require.”

“Democrats should be able to support this,” Ms. Braceras said. “I don’t know if the Democratic governor is going to veto it or not. She shouldn’t, is the reality. If she does veto it, it really will tell you something about how far out of the mainstream she is. This shouldn’t be controversial.”
 
Werbung:
Leftists support woke stupidity because other leftists support leftist woke stupidity. There is no other reason to support the nonsense and those who do support the nonsense should be ashamed of themselves.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/feb/23/kansas-kicks-push-define-woman-red-states-seek-shi/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=morning&utm_term=newsletter&utm_content=morning&bt_ee=ZrP/3Jcw8vySBsuRhAXTUhukD4fjbE5FHYXxmGDFEbbmfoPxLwXRBXGGxXvQCHeE&bt_ts=1677250241289

Books_Justice_Jackson_89829_c0-17-6000-3515_s885x516.jpg

Kansas kicks off push to define ‘woman,’ as red states seek to shield single-sex spaces
https://www.washingtontimes.com/

Then-Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson smiles on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 31, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is working on a memoir. Jackson, the first Black woman appointed to the court, is calling the book … more >

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Thursday, February 23, 2023

Legislators in red states are determined this year to do what Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson could not: provide a definition of the word “woman.”

The Kansas Senate on Thursday became the first chamber to pass the Women’s Bill of Rights, a measure that defines “woman” and “man” in state law. The distinction is central to the push to preserve single-sex areas such as public restrooms, school sports, prisons and shelters.

“What this does is simply codify in the law the definition of sex,” state Sen. Renee Erickson, a Republican, told The Washington Times.

The measure is opposed by transgender rights advocates, although Ms. Erickson stressed that “it does not deal with gender identity.”

“It simply says that in existing statute or law, where there is a definition of sex, it means biological male and female as determined at birth. That’s very factual, it’s very objective,” she said.

Under the bill, a person’s biological sex is determined at birth. “Female” is defined as someone “whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and “male” refers to those “whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”

Similar measures have been introduced this year in Oklahoma, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas. In South Carolina, the legislature is considering a joint resolution that would amend the state constitution to define sex as biological sex at birth.

Figuring out what “woman” means became a political hot potato last year after Justice Jackson said at her confirmation hearing that she couldn’t provide a definition. A few months later, conservative pundit Matt Walsh released his documentary “What Is a Woman?” mocking the gender identity movement.

Ms. Erickson called Senate Bill 180 “a commonsense approach to this issue,” but Kansas Democrats clearly disagree.

The legislation passed on a party-line vote of 26-10 with no Democratic support. Senate Democrats blasted the measure as “another bill targeting trans Kansans.” They noted that legislators also advanced measures banning gender transition procedures for minors and biological males from female scholastic sports.

“This is part of a national push to put biologically essentialist language in statute so that legislators have [a] basis to ban trans people from public spaces,” Kansas Senate Democrats said in a statement on Twitter.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the bill “codifies into law a right to exclude transgender people based on outdated and inaccurate definitions of sex and families.”

Kansas state Sen. Pat Pettey, a Democrat, took issue with the measure’s name as the Women’s Bill of Rights.

“As we heard in committee, it might be better if we were talking about the things that would help women’s rights, and that would be equity in pay, access to child care, and considering our human rights being balanced between men and women,” she said on the Senate floor. “I think this is poor legislation, unnecessary and does nothing to talk about women’s rights.”

In case you were concerned that #ksleg politicians had come up with this themselves, have no fear: this is part of a national push to put biologically essentialist language in statute so that legislators have basis to ban trans people from public spaces. https://t.co/J9DyiJ6ChR

— Kansas Senate Democrats (@kssenatedems) February 22, 2023

The Women’s Bill of Rights was conceived last year as model legislation by two groups at opposite ends of the political spectrum: the conservative Independent Women’s Voice and the left-wing Women’s Liberation Front.

They may agree on little else, but both are alarmed by the growing campaign to allow biological males into sex-segregated female spaces based on gender identity in the name of transgender rights.

Jennifer C. Braceras, director of the Independent Women’s Law Center, the legal advocacy arm of the Independent Women’s Forum and Independent Women’s Voice, said the bill doesn’t change the law but rather “freezes it in place.”

“It codifies the current constitutional jurisprudence and the intermediate scrutiny standard that we’ve all come to rely on to protect women’s rights, but also to recognize that there are certain situations in which men and women can be separated without violating the constitution,” she said. “Bathrooms, prisons, sports, domestic-violence shelters, etc.”

At the same time, the bill doesn’t prevent the Legislature from passing anti-discrimination measures protecting people who identify as the opposite sex in areas such as employment.

“If Kansas wanted to pass a law to protect trans-identified people from discrimination in the workplace, for example, Kansas could do that,” Ms. Braceras said. “The Women’s Bill of Rights, by clarifying the definition of sex in existing law, prevents unelected judges or administrative bureaucrats from changing the meaning of words without the consent of the governed.”

The American Civil Liberties Union said the bill is “essentially attempting to remove trans people from athletics, restrooms, locker rooms, domestic violence shelters, and other necessary spaces,” but Ms. Erickson argued that it is appropriate in many cases.

“There are legitimate reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to prisons, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers and other areas where safety and privacy are needed,” she said. “This bill does not create any new rights or entitlements. It simply codifies the definition of sex as biological male and female in existing statutes and laws.”

The bill is expected to clear the Republican-controlled House but not the desk of Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat. The governor, who was reelected in November, previously vetoed two bills that would have banned male-born competitors who identify as female from girls’ sports.

“We do have a Democratic governor, and we fully expect that she will veto this bill, which just goes to show her extreme position on this,” Ms. Erickson said. “It does not reflect the majority of the people of Kansas. The people want this. It’s common sense. It’s the right thing to do.”

Supporters of the legislation hope Ms. Kelly listens to the voters. The Independent Women’s Forum said a poll commissioned by the group found that 80% of Kansas respondents “think it is important that Kansas pass a law to define sex-based terms,” including “man,” “woman,” “female” and “male.”

The poll also found that 86% of Kansas respondents “believe single-sex spaces should be preserved where safety or fairness require.”

“Democrats should be able to support this,” Ms. Braceras said. “I don’t know if the Democratic governor is going to veto it or not. She shouldn’t, is the reality. If she does veto it, it really will tell you something about how far out of the mainstream she is. This shouldn’t be controversial.”
Where have you been? You've had the silence of an angel's fart.


That's great. When they get women identified it might stop them raping men.

but in reality, it means nothing. You're posting it because you haven't recovered from her being appointed to sc.
The whole thing is a joke because judges are smart enough to know the difference. It's just that she was smart enough to not be drawn by republican vigilantes. But if it makes you happy, go for it because it will change nothing.

 
Washington Times is sane compared to leftist news propaganda outlets and secular science publications. Here is what our money is being wasted on by researchers at Penn State and NASA:

24d15a379dfc259c9be5bd7994a61fcc.jpg


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576510003917

Journals & Books
Acta Astronautica

Volume 68, Issues 11–12, June–July 2011, Pages 2114-2129

Would contact with extraterrestrials benefit or harm humanity? A scenario analysis

Author links open overlay panelSeth D. Baum a, Jacob D. Haqq-Misra b, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman c

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.10.012Get rights and content

Abstract

While humanity has not yet observed any extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), contact with ETI remains possible.

This paper presents a broad synthesis of available information regarding the possible outcomes of contact with ETI.

We organize ETI contact scenarios into three basic categories based on whether the consequences would be beneficial, neutral, or harmful to us.

The last scenarios we consider are those in which contact with ETI is harmful to humanity (Fig. 1, right column). This is a particularly important set of scenarios because of the strong caution they impose on our SETI and METI endeavors. These scenarios have also received extensive consideration in both fictional and non-fictional realms. Here we explore one main type of scenario in which an ETI could be harmful: intentional harm. The possibility of ETI causing unintentional harm is discussed

Acknowledgments

Jason Matheny and Ilana Brito provided helpful assistance on disease spread dynamics. Two anonymous reviewers provided helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article. Any remaining errors are our own.

References (89)
+++++++++++++++++++++
Author
Seth D. Baum
Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, 302 Walker Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 814 863 8755; fax: +1 814 863 7943.
sbaum@psu.edu
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Author
Jacob D. Haqq-Misra
Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, 407 Walker Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA

misra@meteo.psu.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Author
Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman
cNASA Planetary Science Division, 300 E Street Southwest, Washington, DC 20054, USA

shawn.goldman@nasa.gov
++++++++++++++++


Sadly, this is the kind of crap our educated elite is wasting money on and calling it science. The original article by Penn State and NASA 'researchers' suggested that aliens may come to earth and eat us if we do not start spending more money on global warming research. Get it? The secularist medicine men told their stupid admirers that if they do not give more of their personal cash to the medicine men then the medicine men will stop protecting them from Mother Nature.

Here are fair assessments of snippets from the full article the left is understandably reluctant to publicize:

NASA Study: If We Don’t Change, Aliens Will Remove Us (anomalien.com)

In a study conducted by top researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and NASA and published in the academic journal Acta Astronautics (Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis), leading scientists have claimed that intelligent Beings from other planetary systems could very well reach Earth, in order to destroy humanity “in order to make the galaxy a better place to live” and protect other civilizations from the destructive fury of man.

It has also been stated by the researchers that the aliens may even consider the possibility of enslaving the Human Race in order to control it and ‘hopefully’ teach us all how to have care and empathy again, or worse comes to worse use as food! (the Food part sounds a little ‘scare-mongering – courtesy of NASA!).

Ok to be fair this may not exactly rank as one of the most compelling reasons to curb greenhouse gases, but there is a possibility that reducing our internal emissions might just save the Human Race from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists have claimed.


 
Last edited:
Werbung:
Washington Times is sane compared to leftist news propaganda outlets and secular science publications. Here is what our money is being wasted on by researchers at Penn State and NASA:

24d15a379dfc259c9be5bd7994a61fcc.jpg


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576510003917

Journals & Books
Acta Astronautica

Volume 68, Issues 11–12, June–July 2011, Pages 2114-2129

Would contact with extraterrestrials benefit or harm humanity? A scenario analysis

Author links open overlay panelSeth D. Baum a, Jacob D. Haqq-Misra b, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman c

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.10.012Get rights and content

Abstract

While humanity has not yet observed any extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), contact with ETI remains possible.

This paper presents a broad synthesis of available information regarding the possible outcomes of contact with ETI.

We organize ETI contact scenarios into three basic categories based on whether the consequences would be beneficial, neutral, or harmful to us.

The last scenarios we consider are those in which contact with ETI is harmful to humanity (Fig. 1, right column). This is a particularly important set of scenarios because of the strong caution they impose on our SETI and METI endeavors. These scenarios have also received extensive consideration in both fictional and non-fictional realms. Here we explore one main type of scenario in which an ETI could be harmful: intentional harm. The possibility of ETI causing unintentional harm is discussed

Acknowledgments

Jason Matheny and Ilana Brito provided helpful assistance on disease spread dynamics. Two anonymous reviewers provided helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article. Any remaining errors are our own.

References (89)
+++++++++++++++++++++
Author
Seth D. Baum
Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, 302 Walker Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 814 863 8755; fax: +1 814 863 7943.
sbaum@psu.edu
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Author
Jacob D. Haqq-Misra
Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, 407 Walker Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA

misra@meteo.psu.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Author
Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman
cNASA Planetary Science Division, 300 E Street Southwest, Washington, DC 20054, USA

shawn.goldman@nasa.gov
++++++++++++++++


Sadly, this is the kind of crap our educated elite is wasting money on and calling it science. The original article by Penn State and NASA 'researchers' suggested that aliens may come to earth and eat us if we do not start spending more money on global warming research. Get it? The secularist medicine men told their stupid admirers that if they do not give more of their personal cash to the medicine men then the medicine men will stop protecting them from Mother Nature.

Here are fair assessments of snippets from the full article the left is understandably reluctant to publicize:

NASA Study: If We Don’t Change, Aliens Will Remove Us (anomalien.com)

In a study conducted by top researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and NASA and published in the academic journal Acta Astronautics (Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis), leading scientists have claimed that intelligent Beings from other planetary systems could very well reach Earth, in order to destroy humanity “in order to make the galaxy a better place to live” and protect other civilizations from the destructive fury of man.

It has also been stated by the researchers that the aliens may even consider the possibility of enslaving the Human Race in order to control it and ‘hopefully’ teach us all how to have care and empathy again, or worse comes to worse use as food! (the Food part sounds a little ‘scare-mongering – courtesy of NASA!).

Ok to be fair this may not exactly rank as one of the most compelling reasons to curb greenhouse gases, but there is a possibility that reducing our internal emissions might just save the Human Race from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists have claimed.

That's why they don't waste time searching for your silly god which is comparable to aliens. The difference being, aliens could exist where as we know god doesn't.
 
Back
Top