Quietly, a few days before Christmas, a city unmoored from logic and reason; letting slip the ties of natural order, to be caught in the gusts and gales of chaos. All the while proclaiming that it is finally free and unhindered; that the dock hands who stubbornly call and toss mooring lines after it; that the young man racing to awaken the lighthouse; that those in the tugboat chugging to lay alongside and anchor her; that even those on her deck clambering to the lifeboats - they have no foundation for concern. No reason for seeking the firm assurance of solid ground. That she will be carried safely on the rising tide and brought to float on the ebb and flow of the times.
Herman Melville, himself, could not so clearly depict the opening scenes as "human rights" commissions sharpen their harpoons. The white whale of tolerance and conformity spouts clearly on the horizon. The Pequod has set forth to fill its hull with the oil of the shattered lives and businesses of those who hold to biology as a science and to declarative distinctions derived from observation and experience.
On Dec. 21, 2015, the New York City Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued guidance to "provide explicit examples to employers, landlords, business owners, and the general public on what the City considers discrimination under the law." Explicit guidance that declares it a violation of the law to "enforce dress codes, uniforms, and grooming standards that impose different requirements based on sex or gender." Or to "refuse to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in single-sex programs, consistent with their gender identity." Or to "fail to provide employee health benefits that cover gender-affirming care." It specifically requires that a woman who identifies as a man be provided coverage for prostate care.
Setting aside the logical fallacies for the moment, a violation of the law could result in a civil - not criminal - penalty of $125,000. A willful violation of the law can be as much as $250,000. On top of that, the CHR may award an unlimited amount of compensatory damages to a victim of such discrimination.
Thumping its chest and bragging that "New York City's Human Rights Law now goes further" than anyone else, the CHR brazenly takes it place at the bow. The winds of eager politicians and social pundits alike fill the sails pressing it toward the hunting grounds. Its owners and shareholders filled with dreams of the glory that shall come of its voyage.
Yet, it charts its course with a compass that cannot find North and constantly seeks to point back into itself. The maps it relies upon are drawn as if by a sailor trying to plot the waves.
To start, it claims that gender and gender identity are independent of "assigned" sex. Only to declare that "single-sex" facilities and programs must be open to and accommodate all who identify their gender according to that sex. All this after recognizing that sex is clearly distinguishable at birth. Therefore, a binary distinction, rooted in clear physiology, not to mention biology, utilized to categorize access and participation to a distinct population now means that population plus any who choose to decide to be a part of or associated with that population.
In short, the CHR first recognizes that sex equals the biological and physiological distinction that can be clearly verified from the very beginnings of life. It then goes on to state that gender identity is what one perceives themselves to be. And that gender identity equals sex for the purposes of single-sex facilities. Therefore, the perception of ones gender equals the biological and physiological distinction that can be clearly verified. According to the logic employed by CHR, this equation fails at its outset.
For example, the CHR clearly marks out that "a woman's shelter may not turn away a woman," even if they are not a woman - biologically and physiologically.
Additionally, CHR requires that a male (gender) be provided with healthcare coverage for prostate cancer screenings regardless of whether they are a biological man or a woman (sex).
None of this even begins to mention the requirement for use of (sex) distinct restrooms according to perception (gender), even where sex is different from the restroom designation.
Try keeping a fox who believes it's a chicken in the chicken coop.
The CHR swabs the decks with declarations of sex independent grooming standards and uniform requirements. Giving homage to a man (sex) who wants to wear high heals and make up to work. But this becomes little more than window dressing.
To reach its goal, to kill its white whale, the CHR ultimately seeks to (un)balance the equation. It will attempt to do so by launching its harpoons against those that see distinction in sex in an attempt to change their ways or force them from the marketplace. But it will find that tedious and difficult, until it seeks to remove all reference to sex and utilize only gender and perception. And it will chase this until the very goal throws itself heavily back against CHR, crushing its own regulations under their very weight and tossing all of NYC into the heaving sea.
The CHR cannot remove a biological distinction, over which it has no control, from the equation it seeks to define. Its last remaining hope is to turn back and moor once again to what logic, reason, science, and experience makes clear. Otherwise, it will be the people of NYC, clinging desperately to the debris of their once prized vessel, that must make the journey back to port.
Herman Melville, himself, could not so clearly depict the opening scenes as "human rights" commissions sharpen their harpoons. The white whale of tolerance and conformity spouts clearly on the horizon. The Pequod has set forth to fill its hull with the oil of the shattered lives and businesses of those who hold to biology as a science and to declarative distinctions derived from observation and experience.
On Dec. 21, 2015, the New York City Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued guidance to "provide explicit examples to employers, landlords, business owners, and the general public on what the City considers discrimination under the law." Explicit guidance that declares it a violation of the law to "enforce dress codes, uniforms, and grooming standards that impose different requirements based on sex or gender." Or to "refuse to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in single-sex programs, consistent with their gender identity." Or to "fail to provide employee health benefits that cover gender-affirming care." It specifically requires that a woman who identifies as a man be provided coverage for prostate care.
Setting aside the logical fallacies for the moment, a violation of the law could result in a civil - not criminal - penalty of $125,000. A willful violation of the law can be as much as $250,000. On top of that, the CHR may award an unlimited amount of compensatory damages to a victim of such discrimination.
Thumping its chest and bragging that "New York City's Human Rights Law now goes further" than anyone else, the CHR brazenly takes it place at the bow. The winds of eager politicians and social pundits alike fill the sails pressing it toward the hunting grounds. Its owners and shareholders filled with dreams of the glory that shall come of its voyage.
Yet, it charts its course with a compass that cannot find North and constantly seeks to point back into itself. The maps it relies upon are drawn as if by a sailor trying to plot the waves.
To start, it claims that gender and gender identity are independent of "assigned" sex. Only to declare that "single-sex" facilities and programs must be open to and accommodate all who identify their gender according to that sex. All this after recognizing that sex is clearly distinguishable at birth. Therefore, a binary distinction, rooted in clear physiology, not to mention biology, utilized to categorize access and participation to a distinct population now means that population plus any who choose to decide to be a part of or associated with that population.
In short, the CHR first recognizes that sex equals the biological and physiological distinction that can be clearly verified from the very beginnings of life. It then goes on to state that gender identity is what one perceives themselves to be. And that gender identity equals sex for the purposes of single-sex facilities. Therefore, the perception of ones gender equals the biological and physiological distinction that can be clearly verified. According to the logic employed by CHR, this equation fails at its outset.
For example, the CHR clearly marks out that "a woman's shelter may not turn away a woman," even if they are not a woman - biologically and physiologically.
Additionally, CHR requires that a male (gender) be provided with healthcare coverage for prostate cancer screenings regardless of whether they are a biological man or a woman (sex).
None of this even begins to mention the requirement for use of (sex) distinct restrooms according to perception (gender), even where sex is different from the restroom designation.
Try keeping a fox who believes it's a chicken in the chicken coop.
The CHR swabs the decks with declarations of sex independent grooming standards and uniform requirements. Giving homage to a man (sex) who wants to wear high heals and make up to work. But this becomes little more than window dressing.
To reach its goal, to kill its white whale, the CHR ultimately seeks to (un)balance the equation. It will attempt to do so by launching its harpoons against those that see distinction in sex in an attempt to change their ways or force them from the marketplace. But it will find that tedious and difficult, until it seeks to remove all reference to sex and utilize only gender and perception. And it will chase this until the very goal throws itself heavily back against CHR, crushing its own regulations under their very weight and tossing all of NYC into the heaving sea.
The CHR cannot remove a biological distinction, over which it has no control, from the equation it seeks to define. Its last remaining hope is to turn back and moor once again to what logic, reason, science, and experience makes clear. Otherwise, it will be the people of NYC, clinging desperately to the debris of their once prized vessel, that must make the journey back to port.
Comments
Post a Comment