@MoleSmokes
Two people who were not in the least surprised by Biden’s Day 1 Genderist Agenda: Lierre Keith of WOLF (Women’s Liberation Front) and Derrick Jensen of environmental campaigning organisation Deep Green Resistance.
I didn’t realise that Deep Green Resistance members (and their children) had been receiving death and rape threats since the 80’s for the dreadful sin of offering a single room to a transvestite biker who wanted to be booked into the women’s dorm at a conference!
Very timely interview by @Glinner Graham Linehan:
”Interview with Lierre Keith of WOLF and Derrick Jensen”
21 Jan 2021
(And the usual suspects can shut up slandering WoLF as an alt-right, fundamentalist Christian organisation in bed with the KKK before they even start that ridiculous nonsense.)
How to buy influence. Obama was bankrolled by the Pritzkers from his first political baby-steps all the way through to the Presidency. He who pays the piper calls the tune and what Big Pharma wants, Big Pharma gets.
I've been thinking about this all day. When WoLF filed their amicus brief in Harris v EEOC (re the firing of Aimee Stephens) to the Supreme Court, they argued that a ruling that placed gender identity above sex would have grave consequences for women's sex-based rights.
They were not just opposed in this by trans rights activists, but also many women's rights campaigners, including a whole range of those actively opposing transgender ideology and legislation.
The case was limited to Title VII, employment rights only. It wouldn't, it couldn't be applied to Title IX or any other legal protections women relied on for their rights. They were mistaken, alarmist, misguided, ignorant of how the law worked. They should never have placed themselves on the same side as right-wing Christians, joining forces with them in defending Harris - a decision painted as either naive or evil and unforgivable.
Biden's EO argues precisely what WoLF warned about - that the SCOTUS judgement in Harris v Stephens means that it must now be understood that where the law states sex, this includes gender identity and sexual orientation. What this means in practice, in cases where the rights of those who need protection on the basis of their gender identity come into conflict with the rights of those who need protection on the basis of their sex has neither been considered by those in power nor tested in court.
But as WoLF and many of us here on MN know from experience, where such conflicts are resolved outside of the courts, women and girls consistently lose out.
I'm sure it's little consolation to WoLF to have been proven right. And I do wonder what those on our side of the debate now think who so strongly opposed their amicus brief.