Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Another Insult to Women
Just when you think the acknowledgment of “transgender anything” can’t be any more inane, we have the 2023 Women of Courage Award. If I were any of the other women grouped with this man calling himself a woman, I’d be embarrassed and might be tempted to remove myself from consideration. Then again, most of the women from the brief description of their accomplishments deserved to have their work recognized.
Men do not.
The controversy arose when a transgender woman was recognized for her accomplishments, which I believe paled in comparison to the other women who were recognized:
This year’s annual International Women of Courage Awards ceremony at the White House honored ‘11 extraordinary women from around the world who are working to build a brighter future for all,’ according to a State Department press release.
Argentinian Alba Rueda was introduced at the ceremony as a ‘transgender woman who was kicked out of classrooms, barred for sitting for exams, refused job opportunities, subjected to violence, and rejected by her family. But in the face of these challenges, she worked to end violence and discrimination against the LGBTQ plus community in Argentina.’
Her other credentials included the following:
Rueda currently serves as Argentina’s Special Envoy for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship. The State Department said Rueda had ‘actively campaigned to change the name of the National Women’s Conference to the ‘Plurinational Conference of Women and Lesbian, Cross-Dresser, Transgender, Bisexual, Intersex and Non-Binary Persons’ to include diverse, dissident, and racialized identities.’
It might be easy to dismiss this action as one more revolting virtue signal from the woke community. But a number of thoughts occurred to me.
- Why aren’t feminists protesting this type of attack on biological women?
- Isn’t it interesting that the number of women selected was eleven; it caused me to wonder if ordinarily 10 women would have been selected, but adding the transgender person made a woke statement; thus 11 women in total.
- Why don’t they just give transgenders their own awards?
- Isn’t it time that we honor men with an award of courage of their own? (It does take courage to live in this society that hates men.)
If you’re curious about the other women who were practically ignored, except for the press conference, you can learn about them here.
I agree with Christopher Bedford of Common Sense Society:
“We are not a serious country.”
Published in Culture
Thanks, Caryn. I’m a fan of Peterson, too; he’s a wise and practical man. I agree with your take on feminism and the sexual revolution; it’s resulted in angry and hurt women who don’t understand why all of it didn’t work out. And they’re still waiting . . .
it’s hard to be a serious country when half if it is play acting.
I look forward to the day when women who happen to have penises won’t have to dress in feminine clothing, wear makeup and adopt conventional hairstyles. If for example, I were to continue to dress in conventional male clothes but now declare that I have actually always been a cross-dressing woman isn’t that just as valid as women with penises who insist on costume drama?
As some of you know, I identify as Louise, a lesbian of color on most weekdays and as Raoul, a young Latinx bodybuilder on weekends. If my appearance does not conform to your preconceived notions and expectations for the identity born of my truth does that invalidate or erase me? I think not. Why should your archaic notions of sexuality and false expectations be privileged over the truth of my choices?
So if you will excuse me, Elvis Crispo and Marc Anthony have been blaring in weight room stereo as I type this and Raoul’s glutes need the work…
This: The State Department said Rueda had ‘actively campaigned to change the name of the National Women’s Conference to the ‘Plurinational Conference of Women and Lesbian, Cross-Dresser, Transgender, Bisexual, Intersex and Non-Binary Persons’ to include diverse, dissident, and racialized identities.’
Is amazing.
Women don’t get to have their own conference anymore.
“Plurinational?” Feh. “International” ain’t prestigious for you, Cupcake?
That’s, I think, the most telling of all. Firstly, they do: every year someone has to win the best Halloween costume contest. Seriously, though, “their own” is exclusionary and thus the “I” in “DIE” can’t participate. I see it as going this way, over say… 20 years: in order to counter the “what is a woman?” Movement, this “plurinational” nonsense will become the “I am a woman” movement and it will include ‘em all. Then when the biological men replace all biological women in Women’s athletics, and from the natural result of there being no audience for it, the movement will be for total open competition because, hey, inclusion. Open competition will mean the best of the biological men will dominate and we might get back to square one. 20 years as that’s long enough, maybe, for this idiotic generation to die off.
There was a time when we would have called this hyperbole. . .
Men never got to have their own conference, not in my lifetime.
Why would you give so-called transgenders their own awards? To encourage them? Why would you want to encourage such bizarre, freakish, and perverse behavior?
Why not just say no?
If you accept something, you’re going to get more of it. This is precisely what we’re seeing.
I’d guess you weren’t a Boy Scout?
Back in my old feminista days…I would’ve said “every conference was a men’s conference.”
Which wasn’t entirely wrong: If women were discouraged or forbidden from joining an organization or entering a profession, the de facto result would be all-male conferences, committees, clubs, conventions, meetings, awards banquets, business lunches etc.
The Cosmos Club (for distinguished scientists, scholars, writers, preachers, financiers and other notables) in Washington, DC did not permit black men to join until 1962, and did not accept female distinguished notables until 1988— I remember this vividly, because my grandfather was a member, and we used to be taken to the Cosmos Club for brunch (the popovers were a big draw). As a girl, I understood that even if I were to become a writer or preacher, I could not look forward to joining the club when I grew up. Indeed, it wasn’t until I was pregnant with my second child that the policy changed, and we had celebratory popovers with my by-then-widowed (and disapproving!) grandmother.
If the Cosmos Club ever hosted a conference, it was a men’s conference.
Women, meanwhile, formed their own clubs, colleges, conferences and whatnot because they weren’t permitted in the “scientists” club, but they also created organizations for women-qua-women for what I imagine are obvious reasons. To the extent that these remain necessary, I think it’s reasonable to object when “woman” (a word applicable to half the human race) becomes one in a long list of minor and trivial categories. While, apparently, “man” still has a definition, if only to ensure that the Oppressor can be coherently discussed.
It was a sarcastic, throwaway comment.
“An Arizona high school has a policy allowing transgender students to change in their preferred locker rooms and telling female students to use alternative facilities if they are uncomfortable, according to emails obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.”
How bad can stupid be? THIS STUPID. Never mind that it is condescending, elitist, unfair, inappropriate . . . okay, I’ll stop…
He/She/Them campaigned to change the name of the women’s conference to what???!!! Insanity deserves its own award ceremony! UGH!
I was a boy scout. Boy scouts are not men. They are boys.
In my day — I turned 18 in 1985 — there were almost no men’s organizations. Some private clubs were exempted, I think, but the general rule was that sex discrimination laws prevented the existence of men’s-only groups. Strangely, though, the same laws did not prevent the existence of women’s-only groups.
These rules may have been my first encounter with what apparently passes for “fairness” among women. The basic rule seems to be that you can’t discriminate on the basis of sex, unless women want to, in which case such discrimination is not only permissible but mandatory.
Uh oh. I don’t like seeing this in my home state. Do you know where it occurred, Kate?
Actually the “first” of giving trans prizes in a women’s context may have been the character LIZZO, who shared a people’s choice award she was given with 17 other “activists,” which included this person https://www.instagram.com/jaylarosepdx/?hl=en
who Lizza described as “a professionally trained dancer who is making sure there’s space for transgender and nonbinary performers in the dance community.”
Also onstage was Los Angeles-based community health educator Chandi Moore, who works to give “trans and gender nonconforming youth the tools they need to live their lives as their authentic selves.”
Lizzo has elsewhere slammed Texas governor Greg Abbott’s directive to have parents of trans children investigated as child abusers. “They’re taking away the right for young children to have a chance to live authentically as themselves,” she said at the time. “It’s a violation of human rights. Trans rights are human rights.”
Catalina Foothills High School (CFHS) in Tucson
https://dailycaller.com/2023/03/10/exclusive-high-school-policy-forces-girls-to-leave-their-locker-room-if-uncomfortable-with-trans-students/
I’d tend to agree, ack-shully.
I feel, rather strongly, that if there is an organization for, say, Physicists, or Police Officers or Pomegranate farmers, that such organizations ought to welcome everyone who meets the professional criteria regardless of sex. If, for example, the Physicist’s club or Police Officer’s Benevolent Society happens to have more men in it, or all men for that matter, well, so be it. I am fine with the chips falling where they may, so to speak, as long as nobody is actually ejecting them. (Same, by the way, for all other characteristics, e.g. race, eye shape, presence or absence of a large beer gut, etc.)
There are certain, fairly specific areas in which, for obvious reasons, women and men should be segregated by sex, thus accommodating the relevant physical differences between them.
But I’m with you (I think?) that if a college can be all-female, another college can be all-male, and if there is good reason, it is the same good reason in either case: That women or men derive some advantage from being in a sex-segregated environment.
I don’t see it myself, but then, I tend to be more comfortable in, and interested by, diverse groups. Like, say, Ricochet.
Welcome to the Neo-Patriarchy, run by trans women and those who support them. Women of others stripes will now have to get in line for recognition of real achievements behind the trans women. At least until the next thing comes along. As my coffee cup with the cartoon of a sheep on it says, “I support the current thing.” Well, I’m going to have to reconsider it. Right now I would be willing to consider getting behind what’s left of the Old Patriarchy if it could do away with the Neo-Patriarchy. What’s that you say? I might have to convert to Islam? Or perhaps Orthodox Judaism? That might be a stretch. Maybe I’ll have to make do with studying Biblical Hebrew.
My but things moved fast. We started slowly with victim bingo. Women and racial minorities grappled for the crown. The winner would get the last word in all political discussions, hiring preferences, and the right to silence others. Second place could lord it over anybody but the winners. But then, suddenly, the deviants and perverts stepped up “Who is hated more than deviants and perverts, therefore, we are the ultimate victims and so we win!” So, women without penises can now be kicked off the team, outta the ladies room, and off social media for not acknowledging the winners. Maybe we need a ban on victim bingo.
If there’s one thing we learned from the left is that you have to come up with a somewhat impenetrable label and then toss it around freely in social media. I think you have nailed it. But we need a few more, as in:
That is an example of supertransectional, postindoctrinational, neopatriarchal homodoxy.
Everyone of them flagged by the spell checker so we know we are in the right ball park.
I don’t know about that; you might be able to turn that bingo into a profitable enterprise!
GC, you’re a natural! Who knew?!
That is the seminal problem: victim bingo is extremely profitable for far too many people.
The bigger problem is that people are accepting PC credit points for going along with this, the most worthless currency there is.
What about the victims of election fraud?
They can’t be victims if mostly white. The powerless can cheat and take power without losing their victimhood. Similarly, just because one got sent to Auschwitz doesn’t mean that one is no longer an oppressor, part of a victimizing global cabal. The Narrative (Peace Be Upon It) is not subject to empirical observations or change or reality itself.