Editorial: An aspect of the Equality Act would erase social norms

The Equality Act admirably sets out to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “sexual orientation and gender identity” as protected from discrimination in public accommodations and employment.

It is sponsored in the House by all but one Democrat — including Nevada Reps. Dina Titus, Steven Horsford and Susie Lee. A companion bill in the Senate is sponsored by all but one Democrat — including Nevada Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jackie Rosen.

Unfortunately, the bill would curtail free speech rights, religious freedoms and gender privacy for the vast majority of Americans.

As the Heritage Foundation points out the Equality Act would force schools, churches, hospitals, businesses and others to accommodate anyone’s “chosen gender” instead of their actual “biological sex.” This would mean that females would be forced to share bathrooms, locker rooms and dormitories with males who “identify” as women.

It also would mean such males who “identify” as females would be allowed to compete in athletics against biological females, even though biological males tend to be faster and stronger than biological females.

There are already a number of cases across the nation in which males have won championships in various sports at the expense of actual women and girls. Might males snatch athletic scholarships from females? Is that equality?

Heritage further notes, “Medical professionals would be pressured to provide gender-affirming treatments like puberty blockers and hormones — these are irreversible decisions that have not been shown to help mental health while creating a litany of permanent physical health problems. Subjecting children to such radical procedures is even more dubious when one considers that 80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria no longer feel distressed by their bodies after puberty.”

Julia Beck of the liberal Women’s Liberation Front has declared that as written the Equality Act is a violation of basic human rights. “Every person in the country will lose our right to single sex sports, shelters, grants and loans. … We will no longer be able to distinguish between women and men,” she argues.

Beck testified before a House committee that the Equality Act would require admitting male rapists into female prisons, males would have to be allowed into shelters for abused women, men could dominate women’s sports and much more.

Beck told the committee she had no problem with protecting against discrimination due to sexual orientation, but asked that the gender identity portion be struck.

Gender is immutable. It is fundamental down to the chromosomes. To declare otherwise is delusional. To force the vast majority to surrender modesty and safety for the sake of accommodating a tiny deluded minority is just wrong. Separate accommodations for those with gender dysphoria, perhaps, but not access to properly gender segregated facilities and activities.

Our representatives in the House and Senate should rethink this drastic reshaping of social norms.

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

9 comments on “Editorial: An aspect of the Equality Act would erase social norms

  1. Bruce Kester says:

    At the risk of inviting the irrational wrath of every liberal who reads your blog, I’d like to quote Ben Shapiro (4/18 – Tucker Carlson show): “All the Democrats would have to do to beat Trump is not be crazy. Just not be crazy – and they can’t do it. They just can’t do it.” An extension of this is they could gain all the political power they need to rule for generations, but they just can’t be rational. 12 genders, no borders, unlimited appointees to SCOTUS, release the Kraken of unlimited voting rights for anyone, the ruination of the GND…….need anyone question which party is pushing the demise of our constitution?

  2. […] Source: Editorial: An aspect of the Equality Act would erase social norms […]

  3. Anonymous says:

    The party of crazy (“Good people on both sides and one side are nazis”) calling anyone irrational is funny.

    The party of crazy (“there’s no such thing as climate change but wind causes cancer”) trying to tell anyone how to beat their own side in an election is even funnier.

    Demise of the Constitution? No rights to vote at all are acceptable, giving rights to more people to vote is not.

    You guys man.

  4. The party of crazy? It was Democrats who pushed the Green New Deal because the planet will be uninhabitable in 10 years, who support Medicare for All, who want to end capitalism and replace it with socialism, who want to give everyone a guaranteed income whether they work or not, who see Russians behind every tree, who want reparations for the descendants of slaves even it comes from people whose ancestors fought to free the slaves, who support abortion up to birth, who want free college, rent control, tax the rich, open borders, higher minimum wage even it if costs jobs, let 16-year-olds vote and same-day voter registration.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I love this game.

    Yes,the party of crazy wants every American to carry a concealed AR-15, wants only white male property owners to vote, want to get rid of Medicare, Social Security, the EPA, Union Labor, the 14th Amendment, want to torture any American citizen that votes for anyone other than a republican, (and heck some of them too, leastways any that didn’t vote for the Dotard) want to bring back slavery (Ron Paul said that it never should have been outlawed to begin with) want to make every American swear a loyalty oath, want reparations for the white people that originally took slaves since “their property” was taken, saw Russians behind every tree when it allowed them to increase the defense budget and label anyone that denied it was true a traitor, who they’d just as soon label an enemy combatant fit to throw into a black site, but apparently, since Trump has been “elected” those Russians became good guys and at least better than American citizens that didn’t vote for Trump (or in some cases Lying Ted Cruz, and are we still calling him that?) swear that you can’t believe your lying eyes anymore, and that the press is the enemy of the people, and tell the public that if only the government were small enough to drown in a bathtub the world would be a better place cause at least we’d still have the court system (that “we all” believe in) even though according to the president it depends on how the judge spells her last name and whether she’s possibly a member of the same race as those criminal rapists coming over the border to sell drugs to your mothers before they rape her and if she is then you can just disregard what she says and make your own laws because that what this country was based on in the first place.

    That and the right to bear atomic weapons, so long as they’re the carrying or “bearing” kind.

  6. Rincon says:

    If one views only radicals, then almost any political group is crazy. I consider many of the views presented here as crazy, but they are held by otherwise reasonable people who appear to trust different information sources than I. Democrats aren’t so different.

    Radicals have too much control over both parties. I believe one answer to this problem is to adopt instant runoff voting in the primaries. Calling someone who gets a minority of votes a winner seems a little crazy in itself if you ask me.

    Many of your objections to Democrat radicals are reasonable, but calling Medicare for all crazy when essentially every other advanced nation practices something close to it with arguably better results than us, is a little crazy itself in my opinion., As for the “guaranteed income for all”, I think we already have that. It’s called the social safety net. The only question is how much do we pay and can they receive it without working for it? Higher minimum wages sounds unreasonable until one considers that we produce twice as much GDP per person than we did in 1968, but our minimum wage is substantially less after adjusting for inflation. In view of that, I consider the objections to be crazy, not the proposals to raise minimum wages. I could go on, but everybody probably stopped reading by now anyway 🙂

  7. Steve says:

    Raising the floor only makes the basement more roomy.

  8. Bill Bilyeu says:

    What is the point of enacting this legislation? What purpose does it serve? As Thomas has said, “Gender is immutable. It is fundamental down to the chromosomes. To declare otherwise is delusional. To force the vast majority to surrender modesty and safety for the sake of accommodating a tiny deluded minority is just wrong.” What does this accomplish? Where is the greater good of the society enhanced? Do not the majority have rights? This is not legislation to protect but social engineering that will further divide our already divided nation.

  9. Rincon says:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s