Ed Newmann Cartoon August 2023 River Cities' Reader - Boy & Chatbot
Which of the three definitions below best describes: (1) Progressivism, (2) Classic Liberalism, and (3) Classic Conservatism? Answers at the article's end (don't peek).
A: The state is instituted to protect the rights bestowed on individuals under natural law. It exists to preserve life, liberty, and property, not only protecting the sanctity of life but defending freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly, and the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
B: The state exists to improve human societies through political action. The state is empowered to advance the human condition through reforms based on advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization.
C: The state advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; and civil liberties under the rule of law with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom, and freedom of speech.
One of the most insidious threats to America's Republic is the progressive abuse of language in redefining and/or alternative uses of words in order to subtly redirect collective thought for eventual acceptance and absorption into the cultural ethos. By changing languages' meaning, thought can be directed, attitudes controlled, and actions inspired by strategically replacing traditional norms in thought processing that would otherwise be rejected.
A good example is the current subconscious shift in thought when referring to newborns as “designated” a girl or boy, suggesting an assignation of gender rather than naturally born as one or the other. This distortion (genders are not assigned at birth) can result in birth records being altered to reflect something other than physiology. Unintended consequences are legitimate concerns in such circumstances.
While Misgendering May Qualify as Rude Speech, It Is Not Hate Speech
Claims of misgendering are being positioned to establish them as hate speech. Not agreeing to compelled speech protected by the First Amendment is not discrimination or hate speech. No amount of language-craft, administrative policy, judicial review, or legislative action can make it so. It would violate the First Amendment rights of every American, and is prohibited by law no matter how much lawfare is tried. The only process under the sun that can alter this bedrock protection of our inalienable rights is if the American people decide to amend the Constitution specifically giving up this protection.
Yet the establishment persists with its administrative workarounds, which are consistently arbitrary and capricious, benefiting some groups while disadvantaging many others in typical progressive fashion. In instances of misgendering, the question too often becomes: Whose rights are more protected, and whose are less protected, when government intervenes?
Johnathan Turley expressed concern over raising a generation of censors, who are being taught from an early age that misgendering is considered hate speech because it incites violence. However, he neglects to say violence from and toward whom. A recent survey by Redfield & Wilton Strategies revealed that 44 percent of millennials (between ages 25-34) support criminal charges for people who use the wrong pronouns for others or “misgendering.” The article notes misgendering is now a crime in countries such as Great Britain and Canada. And misgendering is increasingly being referred to as an act of violence at some U.S. universities.
Many believe gender transitions are biologically incomplete; a trans woman who still has a penis arguably remains biologically male, while a trans man who has breasts and/or a vagina arguably remains biologically female. Which begs larger questions, such as: What part of gender is portionable? Despite how a transgender person identifies, observing, acknowledging, affirming, or even criticizing biological realities that conflict does not remotely qualify as hate speech, especially when factoring in science fundamentals in microbiology and physiology/anatomy, and more importantly intent. Regardless, Progressives are doing their best to redefine hate speech to include misgendering, and succeeding in a growing number of places.
Imagine a work environment, especially with a medium to large staff, in which personnel has an obligation to remember each worker's identification preferences and pronouns. I struggle to remember names. It is an unreasonable expectation on the part of a segment of the population, whose identifying preferences are highly personal choices and should be respected as such, but should not be imposed upon society to coercively participate. Especially if it means complying with a host of new policies, rules, and even laws where refusal can be punitive.
Reasonable people can oppose using identity preferences and pronouns for different transgender statuses, while not holding an ounce of animosity towards transgender people. Some people object to using preferences and pronouns that affirm transpeople because they do not accept the underlying proposition that transgender individuals have biologically transitioned in the first place, perhaps in keeping with religious beliefs.
In other words conscientious objectors, without a scintilla of animus toward fellow transgender people, are unwilling to have their own right to freedom of speech violated by having their speech dictated. While frustrating, even disappointing to transgender persons, objectors' intent is to protect their own speech first and foremost. All parties are defending their own interests, and hate does not enter into it.
Reversing taboos relative to cultural norms is one thing. Legislating speech with penalties that have real impact creates intensified conflict between groups with disparate interests. This is the perfect political poison from which utilitarian Progressive operatives are born. These are the groups who can be counted on to contribute disproportionately to social chaos, amplifying divisiveness that inspires emotional, irrational angst among differing targeted groups. In other words: manufactured hate.
Progressive operatives' machinations start out seemingly benevolent in some enlightened sense, gradually devolving into regressivism precisely because of group-centricism, which ensures that for one group to ascend, others must descend. Before long, the construct is chalk full of open repressivism for control, ultimately becoming entirely oppressive to survive. It is the Progressive way.
Courts Wrangle with Their Own Misgendering
Take a recent Canadian case involving restaurant employee Jessie Nelson suing his employer for allowing misgendering to occur in the workplace. “In a 42-page ruling, Tribunal representative Devyn Cousineau found that the restaurant’s alleged misconduct violated British Columbia’s Human Rights Act. She went on to write that pronouns are 'a fundamental part of a person’s identity' and that their proper usage indicates 'that we see and respect a person for who they are.'
“'Especially for trans, non-binary, or other non-cisgender people, using the correct pronouns validates and affirms they are a person equally deserving of respect and dignity,' Cousineau wrote in the decision. 'When people use the right pronouns, they can feel safe and enjoy the moment. When people do not use the right pronouns, that safety is undermined and they are forced to repeat to the world: I exist.'”
The tribunal ordered Buono Osteria to “implement a formal pronoun policy,” diversity and inclusion training for all employees, and Nelson was paid 30,000 pounds for his suffering. Eventually, Buono Osteria terminated Nelson's employment for pushing gender-neutral language for its restaurant guests, and “policing language” in the workplace. Conflict and confrontation between Nelson and his managers created an overall hostile work environment, according to one supervisor.
In 2017, British Columbia’s Human Rights Act was expanded to provide greater protection to transgender people when the Parliament of Canada passed bill C-16, which added protections for both gender identity and expression to its existing nondiscrimination and hate crime laws.
Several observations with Canada's ruling are as follows: First, while a comforting signal when employees use the pronouns associated with a transgender coworker's preferred identity, doing so as a requirement by law does not necessarily translate as respect, let alone safety. It is the slimmest of reeds upon which to lean, versus coworkers voluntarily choosing to respect their transgender coworkers by using their identity preferences. A hostile work environment is already a legal violation with remedy, without opening another administrative door for governing speech, especially in pursuit of specific compliance relative to controversial, often ambiguous, new constructs that are evolving.
Second, if language-craft must be deployed to reorder old definitions of words into new ones that conform for future litigation purposes, where is the equity in such contrivances, let alone social justice? It becomes another cultural bullying tactic, coercing participation via speech that triggers more division and chaos. It begs the question: Does this deliberate turmoil really empower genuine transgender people making their way?
Meanwhile, in defense of some of us old bats and bears, have you seen the Diversity & Inclusion Glossary of Terms that includes gender identifications, associated pronouns, and exhaustive vernacular? The imposition on society to familiarize itself with this brand-new, ever-expanding, ever-changing language, with identity preferences created for the validation and self-esteem of a specific segment of society (E.g.; “When people do not use the right pronouns, that safety is undermined and they are forced to repeat to the world: I exist.”), whose misuse can run afoul of the law, is no small mandate. Never mind the requirement is unconstitutional, and hugely inequitable as such.
https://blog.ongig.com/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-terms/
In July of 2021, the U.S. Third District Court of Appeals ruled that misgendering, including dead-naming, patients is protected under free speech in a partial reversal of California's Senate Bill 219, which bars discrimination against LGBTQ+ and HIV patients in long-term facilities.
Judges Elena Duarte, Harry Hull, and Ronald Robie concluded the penalty for referring to patients inconsistent with their preferred identities “restricts more speech than is necessary to achieve the government’s compelling interest in eliminating discrimination.”
https://www.them.us/story/california-court-case-misgendering-law-struck-down
In another 2019 case, the U.S. Eighth District Court of Appeals rejected a Minnesota nonbinary defendant’s appeal that she was misgendered in court, not being referred to by her preferred pronouns they/them during proceedings and throughout legal documents. Court documents revealed the defendant originally objected to “all 134 instances of purposeful and deliberate misgendering” during a November 2019 hearing.
“Clarity suffers and confusion may follow when legal writing refers to a single individual as ‘they,’ especially when the materials advert to other actors who are naturally described as ‘they’ or ‘them’ in the traditional plural,” Judge Steven M. Colloton.
https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-human-rights-violation
https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/03/192537P.pdf
Colloton concluded that because they had signed a plea agreement that “used masculine pronouns,” acknowledged the use of “masculine pronouns for the sake of clarity” in their sentencing letter, and did not object to the prosecutor’s use of he/him pronouns at the sentencing hearing, the defendant thereby “waived any claim of misconduct by opposing counsel.”
https://www.them.us/story/judges-misgender-say-using-nonbinary-defendants-correct-pronouns-too-hard
Transgender Movement Is More Political Than You Know
In keeping with Progressive policy, misgendering is currently being trial-ballooned as “an act of violence” against trans people, evidenced in broadcast-media homogenous scripts, social-media memes, and public-discussion talking points, to acclimate the public to the concept while making its way into the legal system. Speaking words is not an act of violence, except by Progressive language-craft, and classifying it as such is an insult to those who have experienced real acts of violence.
Free speech does not guarantee freedom from goatly rudeness, ridicule, meanness, insensitivity, or hurt feelings, diminution, even outrage. Speech invariably cannot protect us from the invocation of the vast range of emotional responses, good bad or ugly, therefore it is an unrealistic expectation that anything less than coercion will abate it even a little bit.
To date, cooperative voluntary compliance is more widespread than not. This outcome would be considered a win by most movements, but not for Progressives. Harmony is antithetical to their goals. Acceptance and unity is not fertile ground for sowing division, discord, and conflict, the real target outcomes in Progressivism for more receptive group control.
Transgender groups are no exception, vulnerable to alienation, separation, and disharmony therefore more malleable for civil activation as a distinct activism group, especially as transgender people increasingly find themselves in the cultural limelight, voicing their desire for recognition and validation amidst a tidal wave of opportunity to advance their cause.
More than just validating, however, are parties within the transgender movement aggressively recruiting additional trans applicants from a trove of troubled children, minors with a whole range of emotional and mental disorders that conveniently correspond with inclusive definition(s) of gender dysphoria, in some states without parental knowledge, let alone consent.
I understand if you don't believe this information at first blush, so I encourage you to read the history of the transgender movement, Transgender Empire, by authors Judith Butler, Gayle Rubin, Sandy Stone, and Susan Striker.
According to the authors, the transgender movement originated as an inherently political movement versus a cultural means of human transformation for its own merit. Its ideological imperative is to annihilate the “Heteronormative” that supports the white heterosexual power structure by deconstructing it using transgendering. Man becomes woman and woman becomes man in a disruptive refigurative toppling of creation. Transhumanism (merging/augmenting human functionality via machine enhancements using advanced technologies) is the natural complimentary counterpart to the Progressive transgender movement.
At its core, however, the transgender movement is a deeply convicted political movement dedicated to abolishing distinctions of man and woman for eventual revolution and the future of Transgender Maomarxism.
WHO Coup Update
The Biden Administration is getting in front of what it considers a done deal – passage of the Pandemic Preparedness & Response Treaty of 2024 (PPRT) at the upcoming world health summit in March of 2024. On July 21, 2023, the Biden White House officially launched the Office of Pandemic Preparedness Response Policy (OPPR) to compliment the looming international Pandemic Preparedness & Response Treaty, and to coordinate and implement the WHO's directives relative to globally managing health emergencies. Retired Major General Paul Friedrichs has been appointed the Inaugural Director of OPPR and Principal Advisor on Pandemic Preparedness and Response.
There is growing internal opposition to this usurpation of American sovereignty by the United Nations via the World Health Organization, which, if passed, would cede full authority over its 196 member countries for health emergencies that now include humans, animals, plants, and the environment (climate).
Americans must stand in resolute solidarity to reject the current amendments being negotiated behind closed doors for the International Health Regulations, another critical effort under way (mostly in secret) that would advance WHO's recommendations from ones of mere guidance to legally binding directives without legislative approval.
Three unelected bureaucrats from Health & Human Services, Secretary Xavier Becerra and his immediate deputies, are the exclusive delegates on behalf of the entire American population in deciding this systemic change in governance. Three unelected bureaucrats, who epically mismanaged the COVID-19 pandemic, are acting outside any fiduciary representation of the American people for arguably the most important domestic government oversight impacting our lives during health emergencies. These current negotiations amount to more unaccountable process, unconstitutional to its core. Yet the only thing that can stop this violative international overreach is an official rejection by the U.S., in writing, within 10 months of its formal adoption by the cartel of select delegates from select member countries.
"Isms" Definition Quiz Answers: 1 - B, 2 - C, 3 - A.
