To say it’s been an extremely rough 12 months for trans activists in the state of Iowa would be an understatement.
Last March, the governor of Iowa signed legislation banning doctors from giving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors. The law also outlawed the genital mutilation of children. There was nothing particularly unusual about this bill. It resembled legislation that had already been passed in Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, South Dakota, Arizona, Arkansas, Alabama, and several other states. But trans activists in Iowa thought of a somewhat unique way to protest the ban.
For reasons that still aren’t entirely clear, they held an impromptu freak show in a park, in which they demanded to be taken seriously. And naturally, they received sympathetic coverage from local news stations. Here’s what it looked like:
This demonstration was apparently intended to convey the credibility and legitimacy of these trans activists. They want you to know that they’re definitely not self-obsessed narcissists. And to prove it, they’ll dress up in Halloween costumes and prance around in public. And of course, they’ll repeat the argument that so-called “trans kids” are just trying to live their lives by taking hormones and puberty blockers, as if children can consent to permanent sterilization and early-onset bone disease. It’s laughable and evil at the same time, and needless to say, it convinced no one. Iowa’s law banning child castration was signed by the governor shortly afterwards.
So this year, Iowa’s trans community was back with a new strategy. This time, in response to new bills making their way through the Iowa legislature, trans activists decided to commit what can only be described as an act of flagrant insurrection against the United States of America. The display was not contained to the park this time, although as you’ll see, they did that too. This is footage from the past week in Iowa’s capitol. Watch:
Needless to say, everyone involved should be arrested as insurrectionists and sent to prison for 15 years. That’s the precedent that has been set, and it should be applied equally.
As you heard from the guy with the colored hair, “We shut it down today, but they’re going to try to bring this back when we’re not looking.” That’s a reference to a bill that would have classified gender dysphoria as a disability. The Iowa House rejected that legislation after the mob showed up and occupied the statehouse, which is apparently acceptable when trans activists do it. But as the walking anime character predicted, there would indeed be more legislation coming that these activists wouldn’t like. And in response, they once again occupied the capitol.
This latest bill that we’re told will inevitably lead to the genocide of trans activists is actually pretty straightforward. For one thing, it would provide a clear definition for “man” and “woman.” Specifically, the bill would define a “female” as “a person whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova.” And it would define “male” as someone “whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”
One thing you’ll notice about those definitions is that they aren’t circular. They also aren’t subjective — which is to say, they’re actual definitions, unlike anything trans activists are capable of producing. Leftists who use the word “nuance” all the time but wouldn’t know nuance if it smacked them over the head have tried to quibble with the definitions by pointing out, as they always do, that some small number of males and small number of females have dysfunctional reproductive systems. This obviously doesn’t undermine the definition of the terms, and in any event, the definition in the law says that the male’s “reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female,” and that the female’s reproductive system is developed to produce the ova.” That doesn’t mean this system plays out perfectly in every case, with every person. It just means that the systems develop to that end. So the definition works very well.
But the bill does run into some major problems as it goes along. They’re not the problems that trans activists are complaining about, though. So first I’ll present their argument, which as usual, isn’t really an argument at all.
According to the opponents of this bill, the legislation would:
… require special gender markers for transgender people on birth certificates, measures that were compared to ‘pink triangles’ once used to identify LGBTQ+ people by Nazis in the 1940s.
That’s according to a trans activist writing in The Guardian. Apparently these special gender markers “were compared” to something the Nazis did, and this comparison was made by some unnamed entity or individual. And we’re supposed to be very alarmed by this, even though it’s now obvious to everyone that transgender activists are incapable of making reasoned, calm points about anything. They have to compare everything they don’t like to Hitler, at every possible opportunity. So now they’re implying that people identifying as transgender are going to be hunted down in Iowa based on their birth certificates or other documentation.
This article was written by trans activist Erin Reed. So, by his logic, if I compare Erin Reed to serial killer John Wayne Gacy — whether the comparison makes sense or not — then the rest of you, when referring to Erin Reed, can say, “Erin Reed, who has been compared to serial killer John Wayne Gacy.” That’s the way it works now. I don’t make the rules, but I will have fun exploiting them.
If you read the actual text of the bill, here’s what you’ll find. The bill defines the word “sex” to mean, “a person’s biological sex, either male or female, at birth.” Right away, you’ll notice that’s a circular definition, which isn’t a great sign. Things get worse as the bill goes on to state:
The state registrar shall establish a new certificate of birth for a person born in the state, when the state registrar receives … a notarized affidavit by a licensed physician and surgeon … stating that by reason of surgery or other treatment, the sex designation of the person has been changed.
At that point, the new birth certificate will include:
…a designation of the sex of the person, as male or female, both at the time of birth and at the time the new certificate of birth is established.
This is incoherent. It’s actually nonsense. Someone’s “sex” cannot be changed. It is not “assigned” at birth. A notarized affidavit from a physician is incapable of changing someone’s sex or “sex designation,” no matter how many body parts that physician cuts off. What Iowa should be doing is requiring that people’s birth certificates accurately state their sex. That’s it.
Once you buy into the lie that sex can be changed, then you’ve given trans activists 95% of what they want. They may be too hysterical to realize it, but that’s what you’re doing. The only solution is to embrace reality and ban people from changing their “sex” or their “gender” entirely, because these are things that cannot be changed.
This is what Florida did a couple of weeks ago.
The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles announced that residents can no longer change their gender from “male” to “female,” whether they have a letter from a medical provider or not. This is obviously the right approach. And predictably, it led trans activists to melt down in their typical melodramatic fashion. As we saw yesterday, they staged this “die-in” at the DMV, because of course, if you can’t change your gender on your driver’s license, then you’re as good as dead. Watch:
This is also an illegal demonstration, by the way. They’re blocking access to the Florida DMV. Now you might say that they’re mostly silent and peaceful, but that didn’t stop the DOJ from sending SWAT teams to the homes of pro-life activists when they were silent and peaceful outside of abortion clinics. Those activists are now facing a decade in prison. The only punishment these trans activists received, by contrast, is mockery on the internet because of how completely detached they are from reality. Never in history has a group reacted so hysterically to laws this benign and common sense. And never have they been more coddled.
This approach — coddling these people — creates a lot more problems than it solves. The Iowa bill is the perfect example of that. It doesn’t just concede that sex can be changed. It also gets bogged down in confusing and unnecessary explanations, instead of laying down simple and straightforward rules to deal with this nonsense. For example, the bill states that “the term ‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or ‘identical.'” But the bill doesn’t actually define what “equal” means, if not “same” or “identical.”
The bill also states, “separate accommodations are not inherently unequal.” That’s true, depending on the context, but no one is going to read that line and not think of “Plessy v. Ferguson” and racial segregation. All you need to do is say men can’t use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, and women can’t use men’s bathrooms and locker rooms. It’s not that complicated. But the bill leaves itself open to attack here, apparently in an effort to explain things to trans activists that don’t need to be explained.
Here’s the thing: the claims made by trans activists are so fundamentally false and ridiculous that any attempt to meet them on their turf, any ground given to them, even just an inch, will end up with you getting lost in a web of incoherence. All you can do is lay things out very simply, according to the basic biological truth, and leave it at that.
These people cannot be defeated with half-measures. Any form of compromise only emboldens them further. They see weakness and they exploit it. That’s why the Iowa bill doesn’t go far enough. Trans activists who want to deny reality should not receive any kind of endorsement of the state. They are not entitled to some third category of gender, nor should we create “separate but equal” systems on their behalf — nor is there any political reason to afford them any of these concessions.
Trans activists, as a group, have never been weaker, more exposed and less organized. After years of completely dominating the conversation by shrieking as loudly as they can, now they’re on the defensive. If we want to end this conversation forever — a conversation we never should have had — then the solution is not to humor them anymore. This movement deserves nothing but our scorn and contempt and absolute, uncompromising rejection.
When that’s all they get from us, then no, “trans people” won’t die. But their ideology will.