All Posts By

Penny Nance

This Is Why Liberal Women Are So Angry

By | Blog, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

Watching the pitiful story of Harvey Weinstein unfold has been horrifying. The raw power the man wielded over those whom he had authority was surreal. The very fact that he sexually assaulted and possibly raped dozens and dozens of women over decades is almost unbelievable, but the reports surfacing all over the place claim that Weinstein’s actions were an open secret.

Yet because of his position of power over women — even very successful women — he was never held accountable for his crimes.

And still he groped women; he forced them into unwanted sexual situations, and he abused his position of power to degrees that are probably still unknown.

The kicker in this story is that Weinstein cavorted at award shows, fancy dinners, and big fundraisers with the very women he assaulted. He walked with feministsat the Women’s March in January in Park City, Utah. He donated $100,000 to Planned Parenthood last year. He raised millions of dollars for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

He not only paid off the women he assaulted in exchange for this silence, but he paid off, in the way of substantial monetary support, pro-abortion organizations, the Democratic political party, and candidates who have branded themselves as advocates of women.

Liberal women have been told for ages that Planned Parenthood has their backs, that Hillary Clinton would fight for them and their rights, and that the Democratic Party is the only party that will protect women, that cares for them with no judgement.

But where were all of these high-profile people when the Weinstein story broke?

Hillary Clinton took days to respond. The Obamas also took several days to release a statement. Both statements said nothing about the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised for their campaigns by the movie mogul. The Democratic National Committee announced they are only donating a small portion of Weinstein’s contributions — to groups that help elect Democrats and pro-choice women to office.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, has been silent. Women’s March leaders have been tepid in their response.

Feminists have sought for years to break free from the grip of powerful men who take advantage of them, unfairly abuse their control, create impossible hurdles for women to clear to become successful, and then act like everything is all unicorns and rainbows.

Speakers at the Women’s March in January were angry. Ashley Judd, the first celebrity to go on record accusing Harvey Weinstein of gross sexual harassment, was a featured speaker at the Women’s March in Washington, D.C., and she was furious as she read a speech written by a 19-year-old titled “Nasty Woman,” a reference to a line from President Trump.

Liberal feminists put their trust in the very people who covered up criminal actions committed by powerful men over and over again. They were betrayed by a political party that put power over all else.

They were so angry over even the mere thought of paying for their own birth control that they trusted an abortion giant to protect them, one that claimed they aren’t even political, and yet took a ton of money from Harvey Weinstein and threw tens of millions of dollars behind the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

No wonder they are flaming mad.

Hollywood actresses, many of whom built their careers off of Harvey Weinstein’s film, were victims of powerful men and could do nothing without serious repercussions to their careers. (And, yes, I mean “men” — plural. Some reporters have intimated that other “Weinsteins” exist in the darker corners of Hollywood. And how could they not?)

Women’s rights isn’t about abortion. It’s about women getting out from under the thumbs of men exactly like Harvey Weinstein, Hugh Hefner, and no doubt many others who preyed on them, threatened them, and forced them to do horrible acts against their wills. And these same men are the ones claiming to fight for women’s rights, all the while paying those same female actresses less than their male counterparts.

This is why liberal women are so angry. They have every right to succeed because of their own talents and will and determination, but they have been lied to, betrayed, demeaned, and abused by an army of people who told them they were their supporters and advocates.

Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by the Daily Caller. Click here to read it.

Undocumented pregnant teen seeking an abortion in Texas could set new legal precedents

By | Blog, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

A court case bubbling up in Texas could have huge ramifications on both immigration and abortion in our nation. A 17-year-old was caught crossing the United States-Mexican border and was transferred, as is normal procedure, to the Office of Refugee Resettlement under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They took custody of the girl, who is pregnant, and have been caring for her and her unborn child.

Entering the drama is the leftist American Civil Liberties Union, who has gone to court to try to force the government to allow her to obtain an abortion. On whose dime the abortion would be provided, we don’t know. Various media reports have said pro-abortion organizations have raised funds to pay for the abortion, but that’s unclear.

A judge in California threw out the case, because it wasn’t in her jurisdiction. The ACLU refiled the case in Washington, D.C. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said that undocumented immigrants have no constitutional right to abortion and that he does not want Texas to become a “sanctuary state” for abortion. Add to the mix that Texas has parental notification laws. Several states have already filed amicus briefs in support of Texas’ stance.

I’d agree as well.

There are numerous moral and legal issues to this case that must be addressed. First, the girl is a minor, and she was unaccompanied when she crossed the border. We don’t know where her parents are or anything about her family. She is legally under the custody of HHS, who are providing her with the care she needs and is not consenting to take her to have an abortion. It is also worth noting that HHS is actually caring for two patients (the mother and the unborn child). I am told by sources inside HHS that our government has offered to take her back to her home country where she and her parents can decide what to do.

Secondly, an illegal immigrant has no legal right to an abortion in this country. (Actually, there is no legal right to abortion under the Constitution, as the ACLU has argued, but that is another story.) If a court decides this young woman can come to the United States illegally and demand to have an abortion, what’s to stop anyone following her from doing the exact same thing?

And who is going to foot the bill for these abortions? Taxpayers? No way.

Abortion is not healthcare and should not be treated as such, no matter how loudly Planned Parenthood screams that it should be. They profit tremendously off of abortions, as does the entire industry and the elected officials behind whom they throw millions of dollars. There is nothing objective about abortion coming from the ACLU and their abortion-lobby buddies.

There is no question that this teenager is in a difficult situation. Whatever the backstory is, it can’t be pretty to have ended up how she did. But the United States, especially under a demonstrably pro-life president, has no reason to aid her in obtaining an abortion.

A court ordering HHS to take the girl for an abortion is an unreasonable demand on the conscience of the organizations helping the teen right now, taking care of her and her unborn baby.

The precedent for such an action, either voluntarily or by court order, could be the opening for taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants. There are plenty of good organizations in the country that care for teens just like this young woman, without the added burden of abortion to her life.

The Harvey Weinstein Scandal: Why Are So-Called Feminists Defending This Creep?

By | Blog, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation, Uncategorized | No Comments

Harvey Weinstein should go sign up for the dating website OkCupid and make sure he gets that pink ribbon on his profile, branding him a feminist and supporter of Planned Parenthood. The media mogul is the ultimate bro-choicer, an adoring donor to the Democratic Party, defended by some of the left’s most powerful women.

Weinstein has been accused in a lengthy New York Times story of doing some truly horrendous things to women, totally unsolicited − also known as sexual harassment − over a period of nearly three decades. His alleged victims were talented young actresses and other women who had the potential to build successful careers on their own without some ugly, creepy man coercing them into giving him a massage or worse.

But this is Hollywood, and the feminists are the women who defend creeps like Weinstein.

Anita Dunn, a close associate of President Obama who became his communications director for a time at the White House, has been reported to have counseled Weinstein after the allegations broke in the media.

Even more troubling is that celebrity women’s advocate attorney Lisa Bloom is representing Weinstein. This is a woman who has represented victims in high-profile sexual harassment cases. Throwing that legacy away, she agreed to represent Weinstein, whom she said she has counseled that “times have changed” and he “needs to evolve into a higher standard.” Really?

Bloom’s reasoning regarding Weinstein gets better, though: “He has acknowledged mistakes he has made. He is reading books and going to therapy. He is an old dinosaur learning new ways. He wants to reach out to any of the women who may have issues with him to talk to them in a respectful, peaceful way, with me present if that is acceptable to them.”

I hope Bloom has a better answer for the women who Weinstein is accused of sexually harassing and forcing to look at him half-clothed or with no clothes at all, with tears in their eyes, as he emotionally blackmailed them for sex.

But this is Hollywood. This is Hugh Hefner’s world. This is the liberal paradise of promoting equal rights and justice for women, yet defending the men who use them for their own satisfaction, discarding them for younger versions every year, and then complaining about it years later when the women finally have the courage to say “enough!”

This is not true feminism. Supporting men who tear down women for their own use, supporting free access to taxpayer-funded abortion so men can cover up their own conduct, and mistreating women for decades is nothing for women to get behind.

These powerful women, these self-proclaimed feminists, are only hurting women when they stand up for and promote men who proudly use their own power to harass and demean women.


Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by Fox News. Click here to read it.

Yes, Hugh Hefner was a pioneer — in the objectification of women and the lie of the Playboy lifestyle

By | Blog, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

While many in the press are hailing Hugh Hefner as a pioneer in his day — championing abortion rights and breaking the shackles of an oppressive sexual culture — the man represented a lifestyle and business that was in no way, shape, or form helpful to women.

It is no surprise celebrities are tripping over themselves to praise the man who gave them a platform to become famous for stripping down to nothing. He will be buried next to Marilyn Monroe, the woman whose nude photograph he published in his first issue of Playboy.

Hefner indeed was a pioneer. He was the force behind the mainstream objectification of women, someone who paid them to take their clothes off and convinced them it was empowering to do so, using the same arguments pornographers use for the same goals.

The harmful effects of pornography are no longer secret. Pornography is violent and has been proven to lead to aggression against women — no surprise since the vast majority of the victims of violence in pornography are women.

Porn is everywhere and easily accessible which is different from the days when boys hid coveted copies of Hefner’s magazine under their beds. An astounding 90 percent of boys and 60 percent of girls have been exposed in some way to pornography before they turn 18. Over half of men look at porn frequently and, sadly, 50 percent of religious men say they are addicted to pornography.

In 2013 traffic to porn sites received more traffic than Netflix, Amazon, and Twitter combined.  According to WebRoot, porn increased marital infidelity by 300 percent, and a study published in Science magazine showed a direct correlation between consuming porn in marriage and a higher divorce rate. Hefner said he never cheated while married, but he confessed that “I had a lot of girlfriends, but it’s not the same as cheating.” And the breakdown of the American family continues.

Holly Madison, who lived in the Playboy Mansion, starred in a television show about her time there and was Hefner’s #1 girlfriend for a time, reveals she contemplated suicide while she lived with Hefner and his girlfriends. The glamourous life was a total lie.

Holly was only one of the many women who bought into Hefner’s lies and suffered the consequences of being bought and paid for.

While I never met Hefner myself, it is beyond my ability to comprehend how Hollywood views a man who walked around in pajamas all day, paid women for sex, brought the objectification of women into the mainstream culture, and became wealthy by creating a magazine for lonely men as some kind of a hero.

Girls, please. We deserve better than this.


Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by Fox News. Click here to read it.

Planned Parenthood hooks up with OkCupid. Guess what this cynical partnership is really about?

By | Blog, News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

It’s about time that Planned Parenthood got involved in the dating market. They have already reaped the benefits of profiting off of the sex toy industry, the genitalia-designed candy industry, and, of course, they make boatloads of money every year as the abortion industry’s leading provider. They have been missing out for years by not jumping headfirst into the online dating world.

But that has finally changed. The dating website OkCupid, which has admitted in the past to doing social experiments on their users, has partnered with Planned Parenthood.  Those who want to find a date on the website will have to answer this question: “Should the government defund Planned Parenthood?” If they answer in the negative, then a cute pink badge will appear on their profile photo along with the hashtag #IStandWithPP.

The partnership’s goal is to solve the problem of finding true feminists on the dating website. Because only true feminists support the right to end innocent lives in the womb. Whoops! Off-topic.

The meetings that preceded this partnership must have been entertaining. It probably went something like this: groups of young women lamenting over drinks about the lack of feminist men, or women perhaps, on online dating, and someone coming up with the brilliant suggestion to screen dating applicants on their support for the nation’s largest abortion provider. Brilliant.

It’s only sad that this idea hadn’t come sooner, because young women could have avoided the losers online who only wanted to hook up with them, maybe pay for their abortion, and move on to the next young thing.

Because, really, that’s what this partnership is about, finding those men who want to use women for unencumbered sex and walk away, no matter the consequences.

The better and more revealing question for OkCupid would be: “Would you support a woman you get pregnant and step up as a father, taking responsibility for the results of your actions?” Or, since 86 percent of most single Americans say they want to get married, what about, “Are you hoping to find a woman to love, marry and remain faithful to you for your entire life?” Those hashtags could have been way more enticing, like #realmen.

The Bro-Choice movement that began in 2013 −  yes, it’s a real thing − out of a Sarah Silverman idea, who probably loves OkCupid for this new partnership, because now they can figure out which girls have such low expectations and low self-esteem that they will require nothing from them.

Bro-choicer Ben Sherman railed against Texas legislation in 2013 that would ban late-term abortions in the state: “Your sex life is at stake. Can you think of anything that kills the vibe faster than a woman fearing a back-alley abortion? Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys. And don’t be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by,” (emphasis his).

Oh no! Less casual sex, more responsibility, less late-term abortion; better bring in Planned Parenthood to fix that problem!

Knowing Planned Parenthood, this partnership with OkCupid is probably the first of many relationships for the abortion giant. They could easily help further divide the nation by getting involved in partnerships with cell phone companies (have the abortion giant on speed dial just in case of pregnancy), and crayon companies (“pink” is now called “Planned Parenthood Pink”).

The opportunities to embarrass themselves are endless. As for women who want real men − men who take responsibility for their actions and protect women, instead of selfish (you insert the word) that exploit them − watch out for that pink badge. Those aren’t the men who will cherish women. Women deserve better.


Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by Fox News. Click here to read it.

 

Let the Dogma Live Loudly

By | Blog, News and Events, Religious Liberty | No Comments

There are many issues on which Congress needs to quickly act – spending, disaster relief, the debt ceiling, health care, taxes – yet one key issue that bubbles under the surface is the long-term concern of nominating and confirming judges to federal benches. While many groups unfairly demand litmus tests for judges, one senator recently slammed an accomplished mother of seven, who happens to also be a Christian, imposing an unconstitutional religious requirement on her during a confirmation hearing.

Ironically, a talking point of liberals is that political parties need to do a better job of recruiting women to run for office or to assume public positions of influence. The Women’s March in January made this one of their big goals (well, that and taxpayer-funded abortion).

Yet, when conservative women do rise through the ranks, sacrificing family time, soccer games, and dinner dates, they get publicly slammed for their beliefs.

Why are smart, thoughtful, accomplished, faith-filled women who are also conservative such a threat to liberals?

Mother of seven and Notre Dame law professor, Amy Coney Barrett, was nominated to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Trump, which means she needs to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. To Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that means a prime opportunity to ridicule a woman who happens to adhere to her faith and be a nominee to a higher court.

This was her entire quote:

“Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also claims to be a Catholic. She is an ardent abortion supporter who has been publicly called out by Catholic bishops for doing a horrible job of representing Catholicism. She’s also a friend of Sen. Feinstein. So, according to Sen. Feinstein, women of faith like Nancy Pelosi can be elevated to positions of authority, just not women who actually adhere to their faith.

An editorial in the Los Angeles Times even said that the senator crossed the line in her questioning of Barrett: “But she went too far in raising doubts about whether Barrett would allow her religious views to affect her rulings as a judge (particularly about abortion rights, Feinstein’s priority when it comes to judicial nominations).”

Rev. John Jenkins, the president of the University of Notre Dame, sent a letter to Sen. Feinstein in defense of Amy Barrett, essentially saying that the line of questioning was frightening: “It is chilling to hear from a United States Senator that this might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge. I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom ‘dogma lives loudly’ − which is a condition we call faith.”

This line of questioning that Sen. Feinstein and her Democratic colleagues went down with Amy Barrett was shameful. Would they have done the same thing if the nominee was Jewish or Muslim?

Faith isn’t meant to be kept within the walls of a church or a synagogue. Faith − true faith − grips the heart and embodies the person who has accepted that great gift and has chosen to live it out in day-to-day life. Demanding faith be left at the door of one’s place of work is decidedly un-American, yet that is exactly what Sen. Feinstein did.

For Sen. Feinstein and others like her who are adamantly pro-abortion, the view that this supposed right of women needs to be upheld no matter what is a religion unto itself. And it is that religion that the senator deems a must-have for nominees to the judiciary.

Amy Barrett deserves to be confirmed. We need many more nominees like her who uphold the law, are constitutionalists, and adhere to their Christian faith.


Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by The Washington Examiner. Click here to read it.

Feminists went all-out Mean Girls on Melania and Ivanka Trump

By | Uncategorized | No Comments

Feminists went all-out Mean Girls on Melania and Ivanka Trump, when a Newsweek piece called them out for — wait for it — wearing high heels.

I love a good pair of stilettos, block heels, wedge, you name it, but according to Nina Burleigh over at Newsweek, heels symbolize everything that is wrong with the Trump women. That’s quite a bridge to cross following any kind of logic, none of which exists in the piece.

In fact, it’s downright legit shoe shaming.

According to Ms. Burleigh, whom I picture as a sensible shoes kind of girl, stilettos are not in fashion.  That’s probably news to Jimmy Choo, Christian Louboutin, or any of the other top designers on 5thAvenue.  But so what either way?  If the Trump women enjoy wearing shoes that make them feel good, why berate them for their choices?

High heels were around long before Ms. Burleigh decided to go all puritanical on us.  Her article suggested that those dirty shoes appeared earliest on the feet of Italian prostitutes in the 17th century.  Actually, no, Persian horseback riders first used high heels in the ninth century to help keep their feet from slipping out of the stirrups. The Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto even showcases a 17th century Persian high heel.

And in the 1600s, King Louis XVI decided that red high heels would be a status symbol of nobility (plus, he was on the shorter side so the height helped him out).

While stiletto pumps are not for everyone and do require a certain amount of grace and stability on behalf of the women who dare to don a pair, many women wear them because they make women feel good and look good.  They can bring a certain air of power to women.  While the famous stiletto designer Christian Louboutin has been quoted saying that his work is geared towards pleasing men, women adore those red-soled heels.  Why? Because they look good, and women feel dressed up wearing them.  In fact, according to the Huffington Post, historically, in times of economic downturn, sales of bothlipstick and high heels go up.

So why does any of this have to be political in nature?  Imagine if a conservative writer wrote this piece about any shoe choice of Michelle Obama.  It would be the front-page headline.  Do feminists truly have nothing else to write about these days?

Even liberal women like Hillary Clinton, Cecile Richards, and Nancy Pelosi all wear high heels.  Ms. Burleigh would not dare to casually mention them in the same article as Italian prostitutes.  As much as Ms. Burleigh wants stilettos to reflect character, they do not, but being nasty about those wearing them does

This is just a catty way for a liberal woman to take a swipe at women who not only wear, but profit from, high heels.  Maybe she would change her mind if she tried on a lovely pair of Ivanka Trump shoes.  They not only look nice but are actually pretty comfortable.

Ironically, I first read the Newsweek piece while sitting in my podiatrist’s office.  I wasn’t there because of my stiletto habit, but rather one that stemmed from running (in running shoes).  Left-leaning women and women right of center have serious policy conflicts.  Fashion, Tom Ford aside, is wonderfully neutral.  Let’s keep it that way.

Google Is Holding Women Back

By | Blog, News and Events | No Comments

It is not a surprise to anyone that there is a dearth of women employed in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) jobs.  Recently, my sixteen-year-old son attended a week-long engineering summer camp.  Upon his return, he said that out of about 25 kids, only three were girls.  The question is, “Why?”  Is it nature or nurture, or some combination of the two?  The discussion of this rages everywhere except, apparently, in the place it most honestly should be addressed: Google.

This issue was highlighted by two recent events: Google’s firing of James Damore, the author of an internal Google memo that went viral, titled, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” in which he critiqued Google’s diversity programs. The second is the story of a brewing lawsuit by women at Google alleging pay discrimination.

Damore was fired on the grounds that the memo touted women’s biological attributes as something that keeps them from being successful in tech fields. He has been accused of being against diversity and perpetuating gender stereotypes.

A closer examination of the 10-page memo revealed little more than a mixed statement, albeit long, of opinions and facts. Is it controversial? Perhaps some of it, but so what?

At the end of the day, there is a gender gap in tech. The vast majority of people on both sides of the political spectrum want to see it reduced. Ivanka Trump and Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, have made it clear that supporting women in STEM fields is a priority of theirs. It makes sense – female voices in matters of medicine, computer science, and engineering are crucial to creating effective service for half of the American population. (When, oh when, is a woman going to take a crack are redesigning mammograms? But I digress.)

The illusive question: “How do we bring more women into the STEM?” There is not a simple answer to that question, and there will surely not be any conclusions if major companies freely fire their employees just for sharing their opinion in answer to that very question.

Google spent over $265 million in the past few years to try to fix their “diversity” problem and recruit more minorities, including women. The result? Absolutely no change in the percentage of women employed at the company. Something didn’t go well. Maybe it’s because the company has been systematically underpaying women. They are currently embroiled in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Labor on this very issue, and 60 women may take legal action for discrimination.

This controversy aside, it is inexcusable (and illegal) that someone should be fired from their job because they stated their opinion and specifically disagreed with the arbiters of political correctness. This is viewpoint discrimination, and it was ruled as a violation of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois in 1990.

But here is an idea, maybe better pay would increase the number of female employees as well as job satisfaction. Instead, Google has set a frightening precedent by firing Damore and revealed an even more pressing question: “Why should we be afraid of this conversation?”  This is a necessary discussion and one that strong, confident women are not and should not be afraid to address and discuss.

Google has done a disservice to themselves by firing Damore for exactly that which he was critiquing them: “a culture of shaming and misrepresentation.” Why is the culture of Google so restrictive and authoritarian that no ideological dissent can be allowed?

But far more detrimental, Google has done a disservice to women by shutting down an important dialogue about ideas such as nature vs. nurture and everything else that goes into the cause of a gender gap in tech.

Do they view women as snowflakes incapable of taking in other’s opinions, digesting them logically, and refuting them gracefully? Are we so fragile that controversial opinions surrounding the gender gap must be shut down and those voicing them fired?

As a woman, I am not offended by Damore’s memo. However, I am offended by Google feeling the need to shield us from an opinion that they believe we are apparently too weak to handle.

How paternalistic.  Articles regarding pay inequity at Google make one wonder if all this diversity “training” isn’t smoke and mirrors to distract from the real issues.  If, indeed, the company with all their big talk about diversity is simply not paying women equally, then we may have uncovered the crux of the issue.  Ping pong tables, massages on site, and even childcare can’t make up for a good paycheck.  All their moralizing is tedious and pretentious.

This entire sordid story is, however, instructive to the bigger picture.  Honest dialogue is important so that this crucial question can be answered, and the next generation of women can increase their presence in the STEM fields in an organic manner. There is one thing all women can agree on — women want to advance their careers because of hard work and achievement, not because of pity handouts. Silicon valley could take the hundreds of millions sunk into sensitivity training, increase pay, and achieve far more diversity in their work force.  Just pay women what they deserve, and fire sexual predators who behave as if they are in a frat house instead of work.  It doesn’t seem that complicated. Shutting down debate isn’t the answer.

Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published at The Daily Caller.

 

Do Transgender Rights Trump Women’s Rights? The Left Needs to Decide

By | Blog, Defense of Family, News and Events | No Comments

As the Left have attempted to stake their claim as the only group who represents and cares about women, they have also managed to simultaneously stab these same women in the back, betraying the very essence of their femininity and steamrolling over the uniqueness of the sexes in order to elevate their own agendas.

The debate over the role of transgendered individuals (people who identify as one gender but have the anatomy of another), has risen again in recent weeks, with President Trump’s declaration that transgendered individuals will no longer be able to serve in the military. It will no doubt continue to be a hot debate as the culture wars rage on. The issue of gender dysphoria is real and painful and we must have love and compassion for them.

But I fear they are being politically and monetarily used as the Left, always looking for a new group to exploit, opens new fronts in the culture wars.  Feminists should wonder, however, that if we reconstruct male and female to sixty-three and growing definitions, who is protected and who is hurt? Does this new idea of no binary definition of gender displace and demean the hard fought and won accomplishments of women?

I think yes. Consider the issue of women’s sports. When men are allowed to compete as women, women lose no matter how hard they work.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was crafted to ensure that female athletes were not left out of sports and created a level playing field which encouraged excellence in competition. Congress and feminists understood that boys and girls are physiologically different and that boys vs. boys and girls v. girls was fair because of basic biological and hormonal differences.

Title IX has nothing to do with character, power, or intelligence.

Fast forward to 2016, when a boy identifying as a girl qualified for the Alaska State Championships in the 200-meter dash, displacing a female athlete for third place. The senior competed against girls as young as freshmen. Hardly fair.

In June of this year, a boy identifying as a girl was allowed to compete on the female high school track team in Connecticut and was lauded for placing first in two races. His time would have placed him last in the same races in the boys division.

Colleges offer sports scholarships for both genders based on high school accomplishments. But now, these scholarships have the potential to be monopolized by boys in both male and female categories.

Last month, it was announced that for the first time since all combat roles were opened to women in December of 2015, there are two female candidates in the Navy SEAL and Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewman program (SWCC) programs.

This watershed moment for women in the military has the merit to stand alone, but instead, the news story went on to undercut the success of these two women by saying that, in fact, the first woman to join an elite Navy force could be a transgender woman who came out in 2016.

Sports titles have been stripped from women, and military achievements by women are being given to men, but surely women can maintain their right to privacy and their respect as child-bearers, right? Wrong.

The women’s bathroom is no longer a secure place for women and children to go for privacy. Security is not so narrow as to imply only physical safety, it also encompasses emotional safety. The women’s bathroom is a place where women are vulnerable. To have a man present, no matter his self-perception, compromises that vulnerability. Talk about a need for safe spaces.

As if this is not enough, the Huffington Post highlighted a transgender individual holding a sign that read, “Periods are not just for women” while flaunting blood-stained pants between spread legs. If not so horrifying and disrespectful, it would be comical. Of course, periods are just for women and most of us have more dignity than to flaunt them for a political stunt.

By using a woman’s menstrual cycle, which indicates her unique role as a foundational creator and nurturer of life, these activists betray women and use her for cheap political props. This is an attack on a woman’s amazing biological ability to bear and give birth to children.

This is gender appropriation – stealing something precious that distinctly belongs to women, demeaning it, and distorting its purpose. Historically, women have fought to defend and protect their position and authority within society. Our spaces and institutions have value and therefore deserve respect and protection from encroachment of the entitled Left.  The emperor has no clothes and our pretending otherwise only degrades women.

President Trump to Reverse Transgender Military Policy

By | Defense of Family, News and Events, Press Releases | No Comments
Washington, D.C. – Today President Trump tweeted that after meeting with his Generals and military experts that transgender individuals would no longer be serving in any capacity in the U.S. Military. This reverses a policy which had previously been instated by the Defense Department under the previous administration in which the United States Federal Government was projected to pay millions of dollars in gender-reassignment surgeries.

Read More