Gender Disparity in STEM Field Explained

School: Don't Say "Boys" or "Girls"

"WSOC-TV is reporting a North Carolina school system presentation to principals and counselors is recommending that kids are not referred to as boys and girls, but instead as scholars and students."

Items of particular interest (I'm leaving out a lot):
Page 9: Gender Unicorn
Page 38: Official school records record the student's biological sex but administrators and teachers must use identity pronouns, though occasional slips might occur.  Intentional refusal not to refer to the students identified gender is a violation of the regulation.
Page 48: Don't address students as "boys" and "girls."  Don't line up students [e.g. bathroom breaks] by boys and girls.  Instead alphabetize or by birth month or favorite color.
Page 50: Remember the importance of indoctrinating helping all students to pretend that a student is what he/she/ze feels "feel inclusive"
Page 54: ...unless it's an athletic event in which case the student is not treated according to the gender on the birth certificate [!]

On Gender, Chinese, Grade, Height IDENTITY

"If I wanted to enroll in a first grade class, should I be able to?"

College Student #1: "Uhhh...ummm.......proooobbably not....I guess..."
College Student #2: "If that's where you feel like, mentally, you should be, I feel like there are communities that would accept you."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So I'll do as a good free-thinking Stoic would do when faced with such options.

Hahahahahaha!

Zis is What the World is Coming To

Read about it zhere.

Oh, and by ze way, zis is one of ze reasons college costs zo much.  We're paying people like zis.

"[W]e should be rid of the last vestiges of Goldsteinism when the language has been cleaned."

Obama's DOJ: Boys Must Use Girls' Potty

The Department of [In]Justice has now weighed in on the ever important issue of bathroom sex: transgenders must be allowed to use the one with which they identify.  Failure to do so violates sex [gender?] discrimination under Title IX.  (Ah, good old Title IX to the rescue.)

Remember not too long ago, sometime after Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) but probably before Lawerence v. Texas (2003), when it was common to say that government--especially the federal government--had no business being in your bedroom?  My how far we've come.  Government out of the bedroom and into the toilet.  Change you can believe in.  

What else has the administration has been up to?  Negotiations have stalled with Iran as (surprise, surprise) Iran refuses to have nuclear weapons inspections.  See also the Iran deal's fatal flaw.

Cake and Cosmology: Why Orthodox Christians Take the Stand They Do on Sex

Rod Dreher:  (if you want a deeper argument, read this)

My friend Chris Roberts, a Catholic theologian in Philadelphia, and someone who
is fairly liberal in his politics  describes himself in an e-mail to me thus: “I wouldn’t call myself a conservative, but neither would I own to liberal. I’ll take just plain old “Catholic,” thanks” – writes with the following thought experiment:

Imagine a gay male couple who have been together for 20 years. They live nearby. You know them well, having a friendly non-political neighborly relationship. You borrow the odd egg, watch each other’s pets when somebody is on vacation, maybe chat at the annual 4th of July party. You are an orthodox Christian who runs a bakery business. Now apply the following scenarios:

A) One of the gay guys has a birthday. His partner asks you to bake the cake. Would you?

B) One of the gay guys dies. His partner asks you to bake the cake for the reception after the funeral. Would you?

C) Marriage is suddenly legalized in your state. They marry and ask you to bake the cake. Would you?

Seems to me that if the answer is no, no, and no, then you ought to examine yourself for homophobia.

But if the answer is yes, yes and no – that’s my answer – then you are arguably simply being principled. I can say “yes” to A and B because I can honor their friendship and loyalty to each other, their faithful service to each other over years. However, I say “no” to C because marriage is not an institution that can be defined entirely in terms of affection, loyalty and service. Or even eros or heartfelt private romantic feelings. Marriage includes all those things, but it exists as a social institution because the fertility of male and female potentially creates uniquely public consequences (children).

The left disputes my premise for saying no to C. Fine, let’s have that debate. People of goodwill can disagree.

But we are not even allowed to have that debate. My side’s case is dismissed by the liberal elite because they think people like me are haters.

Given that I want to say yes to situations A and B, I think it’s demonstrable that I’m not a hater or homophobe. I am not frightened of gay people and I do not hate them. I just do not think that what they are doing is marriage, and I think calling what they’re doing “marriage” will obscure what marriage is. If we say that marriage exists to give public blessing to the romantic feelings of consenting adults, then, over the long term, I and my Church believe that there will be more divorce (feelings are fickle) and children will be harmed (as their primary role in marriage is pushed aside). My Church and I may be mistaken about that, but, given the damage heterosexuals have already caused marriage through our divorce rate and ubiquitous contraception, I think we are at least within the realm of the arguable and plausible.

But today’s mob will not listen to my argument, will not listen to my attempt to make my case plausible, because they are convinced I’m a homophobe. My openness to situations A and B are not allowed to count. That is part of the problem with all the hate directed towards Indiana this last week. The inability to see the “yes” to A and B does not necessarily entail “yes” to C. The inability to imagine that my “yes” to A and B is real and heartfelt, but my “no” to C is principled and not prejudice.

I appreciate Chris’s e-mail. His “yes-yes-no” describes my position too. Ross Douthat, in his Sunday column, also discusses nuances in this debate. The format he chooses is a self-interview. Excerpt:

Gender Roles, Women in Combat, and Senator Tom Cotton

My senator has been in the news of late.  Maybe you've heard.  Perhaps as a result I was asked for my thoughts on the following commentary by the Arkansas Times' senior progressive editor, Max Brantley, on some remarks Cotton made. I'll comment throughout.  

[H]ere's an area where Cotton continues today to say things that echo his youthful comments and they seem likely to contribute to a gender gap in this race. Remember when he said all women should be legally prohibited from serving in combat roles? It's not just a muscle mass thing, because clearly some women could meet the physical standards and all men aren't automatically capable by virtue of their gender. He said, with emphasis added:

To have women serving in infantry, though, could impair the mission-essential tasks of those units. And that’s been proven in study after study, it’s nature, upper body strength, and physical movements, and speed, and endurance, and so forth.

Nature? We look forward to more from Rep. Cotton on the nature of women. We now know his patronizing outlook goes back many years.


TB: Where, oh where, to begin?

Calvin & Hobbes Take Leftwing Feminist Ideology to Its Logical Conclusion

Bill Watterson must have had something like this in mind when he came up with that strip.    Liberals are hilarious.

Check out the "Genderbread Man Person" by "social justice" author, Sam Killermann Killerperson, which was apparently a part of the material given to the teachers for their "training." (No, I'm not making that name up.)

Public tax dollars hard at work!