FWIW, I just got this from a GC proponent of Amendment 7, but expressing concern about Amendment 8:
"I don't like Amendment 8 because it sets up 3 sports category with the 3rd being for trans/nonbinary-identifying kids. This means there are 2 male-dominated categories, and it drains money from girls' sports. It also encourages kids to believe in gender identity ideology, which harms them.
It's not the end of the world because Amendment 8 would be much better than the status quo And I doubt WIAA will go for it because it will be a logistical nightmare. But, most gender critics are supporting Amendment 7, which establishes male and female categories and makes it clear that these are based on sex observed at birth rather than identities."
I think Khush would agree with that statement (her board submitted #7, and I'd wager most of the credit goes to her, though she never said that). My impression is that #8 is a compromise offer that might appease voting reps who are more reasonable than brave. In fairness, there are large districts where reason does seem legitimately perilous to a person's job and social standing, so #8 might be the only safe path for them. Khush told me if both 7 and 8 pass, WIAA is empowered to hammer out a solution that satisfies the main intentions of the vote. In any case, I don't think anyone expects 'trans and gender nonconforming' athletes to go anywhere near a third category.
Thanks for this. As a WA state resident, I will be clicking that link and sharing the word far and wide.
Living in a family that is extremely captured by woke ideology, I can tell you that when I made the same point about women not trying to get into men's sports or other men's spaces, she told me in no uncertain terms that yes, in fact transmen are indeed trying to get into men's spaces and want all the same rights that men have. Including getting into men's prisons. I happen to think she's wrong. But she's probably pretty typical of the average woke perspective.
Great job everyone! Thanks Jenny for putting this podcast together. What really really rings true is Glenna Goldis's explanation that Washington residents, like people everywhere, don't want to discriminate against people with trans identities, and when they vote for anti-discrimination laws, they think it means trans people can't be fired for being trans. Because they still trust that laws have been vetted so that they don't illegally take away the rights of others, they have no idea that this law would be interpreted to allow males to self-identify into women's sports and spaces. If this had been spelled out when they voted for it, anti-discrimination laws for gender identity would never have passed. It was passed by deceit.
FWIW, I just got this from a GC proponent of Amendment 7, but expressing concern about Amendment 8:
"I don't like Amendment 8 because it sets up 3 sports category with the 3rd being for trans/nonbinary-identifying kids. This means there are 2 male-dominated categories, and it drains money from girls' sports. It also encourages kids to believe in gender identity ideology, which harms them.
It's not the end of the world because Amendment 8 would be much better than the status quo And I doubt WIAA will go for it because it will be a logistical nightmare. But, most gender critics are supporting Amendment 7, which establishes male and female categories and makes it clear that these are based on sex observed at birth rather than identities."
I think Khush would agree with that statement (her board submitted #7, and I'd wager most of the credit goes to her, though she never said that). My impression is that #8 is a compromise offer that might appease voting reps who are more reasonable than brave. In fairness, there are large districts where reason does seem legitimately perilous to a person's job and social standing, so #8 might be the only safe path for them. Khush told me if both 7 and 8 pass, WIAA is empowered to hammer out a solution that satisfies the main intentions of the vote. In any case, I don't think anyone expects 'trans and gender nonconforming' athletes to go anywhere near a third category.
Thanks for this. As a WA state resident, I will be clicking that link and sharing the word far and wide.
Living in a family that is extremely captured by woke ideology, I can tell you that when I made the same point about women not trying to get into men's sports or other men's spaces, she told me in no uncertain terms that yes, in fact transmen are indeed trying to get into men's spaces and want all the same rights that men have. Including getting into men's prisons. I happen to think she's wrong. But she's probably pretty typical of the average woke perspective.
Great job everyone! Thanks Jenny for putting this podcast together. What really really rings true is Glenna Goldis's explanation that Washington residents, like people everywhere, don't want to discriminate against people with trans identities, and when they vote for anti-discrimination laws, they think it means trans people can't be fired for being trans. Because they still trust that laws have been vetted so that they don't illegally take away the rights of others, they have no idea that this law would be interpreted to allow males to self-identify into women's sports and spaces. If this had been spelled out when they voted for it, anti-discrimination laws for gender identity would never have passed. It was passed by deceit.
Thank you for introducing me to Dori! I so hope these ladies get a big win next month. They’re all amazing.