Trans Activists Stage Another Insurrection

[Ubiquitous]

To say it’s been an extremely rough 12 months for trans activists in
the state of Iowa would be an understatement.

Last March, the governor of Iowa signed legislation banning doctors
from giving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors. The law
also outlawed the genital mutilation of children. There was nothing
particularly unusual about this bill. It resembled legislation that had
already been passed in Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, South Dakota,
Arizona, Arkansas, Alabama, and several other states. But trans
activists in Iowa thought of a somewhat unique way to protest the ban.

For reasons that still aren’t entirely clear, they held an impromptu
freak show in a park, in which they demanded to be taken seriously. And
naturally, they received sympathetic coverage from local news stations.
Here’s what it looked like:

https://youtu.be/NQgnEjXCnhI

This demonstration was apparently intended to convey the credibility
and legitimacy of these trans activists. They want you to know that
they’re definitely not self-obsessed narcissists. And to prove it,
they’ll dress up in Halloween costumes and prance around in public. And
of course, they’ll repeat the argument that so-called “trans kids” are
just trying to live their lives by taking hormones and puberty
blockers, as if children can consent to permanent sterilization and
early-onset bone disease. It’s laughable and evil at the same time, and
needless to say, it convinced no one. Iowa’s law banning child
castration was signed by the governor shortly afterwards.

So this year, Iowa’s trans community was back with a new strategy. This
time, in response to new bills making their way through the Iowa
legislature, trans activists decided to commit what can only be
described as an act of flagrant insurrection against the United States
of America. The display was not contained to the park this time,
although as you’ll see, they did that too. This is footage from the
past week in Iowa’s capitol. Watch:

https://youtu.be/3Y2k70B75s4

Needless to say, everyone involved should be arrested as
insurrectionists and sent to prison for 15 years. That’s the precedent
that has been set, and it should be applied equally.

As you heard from the guy with the colored hair, “We shut it down
today, but they’re going to try to bring this back when we’re not
looking.” That’s a reference to a bill that would have classified
gender dysphoria as a disability. The Iowa House rejected that
legislation after the mob showed up and occupied the statehouse, which
is apparently acceptable when trans activists do it. But as the walking
anime character predicted, there would indeed be more legislation
coming that these activists wouldn’t like. And in response, they once
again occupied the capitol.

This latest bill that we’re told will inevitably lead to the genocide
of trans activists is actually pretty straightforward. For one thing,
it would provide a clear definition for “man” and “woman.”
Specifically, the bill would define a “female” as “a person whose
biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova.” And it
would define “male” as someone “whose biological reproductive system is
developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”

One thing you’ll notice about those definitions is that they aren’t
circular. They also aren’t subjective — which is to say, they’re actual
definitions, unlike anything trans activists are capable of producing.
Leftists who use the word “nuance” all the time but wouldn’t know
nuance if it smacked them over the head have tried to quibble with the
definitions by pointing out, as they always do, that some small number
of males and small number of females have dysfunctional reproductive
systems. This obviously doesn’t undermine the definition of the terms,
and in any event, the definition in the law says that the male’s
“reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female,”
and that the female’s reproductive system is developed to produce the
ova.” That doesn’t mean this system plays out perfectly in every case,
with every person. It just means that the systems develop to that end.
So the definition works very well.

But the bill does run into some major problems as it goes along.
They’re not the problems that trans activists are complaining about,
though. So first I’ll present their argument, which as usual, isn’t
really an argument at all.

According to the opponents of this bill, the legislation would:

… require special gender markers for transgender people on
birth certificates, measures that were compared to ‘pink
triangles’ once used to identify LGBTQ+ people by Nazis in
the 1940s.

That’s according to a trans activist writing in The Guardian.
Apparently these special gender markers “were compared” to something
the Nazis did, and this comparison was made by some unnamed entity or
individual. And we’re supposed to be very alarmed by this, even though
it’s now obvious to everyone that transgender activists are incapable
of making reasoned, calm points about anything. They have to compare
everything they don’t like to Hitler, at every possible opportunity. So
now they’re implying that people identifying as transgender are going
to be hunted down in Iowa based on their birth certificates or other
documentation.

This article was written by trans activist Erin Reed. So, by his logic,
if I compare Erin Reed to serial killer John Wayne Gacy — whether the
comparison makes sense or not — then the rest of you, when referring to
Erin Reed, can say, “Erin Reed, who has been compared to serial killer
John Wayne Gacy.” That’s the way it works now. I don’t make the rules,
but I will have fun exploiting them.

If you read the actual text of the bill, here’s what you’ll find. The
bill defines the word “sex” to mean, “a person’s biological sex, either
male or female, at birth.” Right away, you’ll notice that’s a circular
definition, which isn’t a great sign. Things get worse as the bill goes
on to state:

The state registrar shall establish a new certificate of birth
for a person born in the state, when the state registrar
receives … a notarized affidavit by a licensed physician and
surgeon … stating that by reason of surgery or other treatment,
the sex designation of the person has been changed.

At that point, the new birth certificate will include:

... a designation of the sex of the person, as male or female,
both at the time of birth and at the time the new certificate
of birth is established.

This is incoherent. It’s actually nonsense. Someone’s “sex” cannot be
changed. It is not “assigned” at birth. A notarized affidavit from a
physician is incapable of changing someone’s sex or “sex designation,”
no matter how many body parts that physician cuts off. What Iowa should
be doing is requiring that people’s birth certificates accurately state
their sex. That’s it.

Once you buy into the lie that sex can be changed, then you’ve given
trans activists 95% of what they want. They may be too hysterical to
realize it, but that’s what you’re doing. The only solution is to
embrace reality and ban people from changing their “sex” or their
“gender” entirely, because these are things that cannot be changed.

This is what Florida did a couple of weeks ago.

The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles announced
that residents can no longer change their gender from “male” to
“female,” whether they have a letter from a medical provider or not.
This is obviously the right approach. And predictably, it led trans
activists to melt down in their typical melodramatic fashion. As we saw
yesterday, they staged this “die-in” at the DMV, because of course, if
you can’t change your gender on your driver’s license, then you’re as
good as dead. Watch:

https://youtu.be/ejVand-zV8g

This is also an illegal demonstration, by the way. They’re blocking
access to the Florida DMV. Now you might say that they’re mostly silent
and peaceful, but that didn’t stop the DOJ from sending SWAT teams to
the homes of pro-life activists when they were silent and peaceful
outside of abortion clinics. Those activists are now facing a decade in
prison. The only punishment these trans activists received, by
contrast, is mockery on the internet because of how completely detached
they are from reality. Never in history has a group reacted so
hysterically to laws this benign and common sense. And never have they
been more coddled.

This approach — coddling these people — creates a lot more problems
than it solves. The Iowa bill is the perfect example of that. It
doesn’t just concede that sex can be changed. It also gets bogged down
in confusing and unnecessary explanations, instead of laying down
simple and straightforward rules to deal with this nonsense. For
example, the bill states that “the term ‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or
‘identical.'” But the bill doesn’t actually define what “equal” means,
if not “same” or “identical.”

The bill also states, “separate accommodations are not inherently
unequal.” That’s true, depending on the context, but no one is going to
read that line and not think of “Plessy v. Ferguson” and racial
segregation. All you need to do is say men can’t use women’s bathrooms
and locker rooms, and women can’t use men’s bathrooms and locker rooms.
It’s not that complicated. But the bill leaves itself open to attack
here, apparently in an effort to explain things to trans activists that
don’t need to be explained.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP
Here’s the thing: the claims made by trans activists are so
fundamentally false and ridiculous that any attempt to meet them on
their turf, any ground given to them, even just an inch, will end up
with you getting lost in a web of incoherence. All you can do is lay
things out very simply, according to the basic biological truth, and
leave it at that.

These people cannot be defeated with half-measures. Any form of
compromise only emboldens them further. They see weakness and they
exploit it. That’s why the Iowa bill doesn’t go far enough. Trans
activists who want to deny reality should not receive any kind of
endorsement of the state. They are not entitled to some third category
of gender, nor should we create “separate but equal” systems on their
behalf — nor is there any political reason to afford them any of these
concessions.

Trans activists, as a group, have never been weaker, more exposed and
less organized. After years of completely dominating the conversation
by shrieking as loudly as they can, now they’re on the defensive. If we
want to end this conversation forever — a conversation we never should
have had — then the solution is not to humor them anymore. This
movement deserves nothing but our scorn and contempt and absolute,
uncompromising rejection.

When that’s all they get from us, then no, “trans people” won’t die.
But their ideology will.

--
Let's go Brandon!