Excluding MTF Transgender Athletes From Women’s Sports Protects Women’s Sports and Freedom of Association

The debate over transgender athletes in women's sports has come to the forefront of the culture wars in the United States, sitting at a peculiar intersection of fairness, biology, identity, and law. Supporters of allowing male-to-female (MTF) transgender athletes to compete in women's sports frame the issue as one of inclusion and fairness to transgender people. For supporters, exclusion is seen as unfair, stigmatizing, and for some, a form of bigotry. Opponents argue that women's sports exist to offset the biological differences between the two sexes, and that inclusion of MTF athletes in women's sports undermines the fairness and purpose of sex-segregated competition. A recent Gallup poll shows that 69 percent of Americans believe that transgender athletes should only play on sports teams that match their biological sex.

The question of which version of fairness should prevail is no longer an abstraction or one confined to an isolated incident here or there. Last week, the Supreme Court heard two cases on the matter: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. These cases are important because they touch upon how competing priorities are balanced in public institutions. While women's sports began in the late 19th century, they were enshrined in law with Title IX, which is a U.S. law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal funding, including athletics. 

Since these cases involve public schools, any eligibility rules are going to be framed in terms of government power, as well as taking a side on a culture war issue. The laws prohibiting MTF transgender athletes from participating in public school athletics are the legal question at hand for the Supreme Court. I want to look at this issue more generally of whether MTF transgender athletes should be allowed to participate in women's sports from a lens of freedom and fairness. 

Why This Is Not a Ban

First, I want to point out that excluding MTF transgender athletes from playing in women's sports is not a ban. From a public policy standpoint, a ban prohibits someone from participating in an activity altogether. An eligibility rule, by contrast, defines who qualifies for a particular category while leaving open other avenues for participation. As we will see later, there is a reason why women's sports impose eligibility criteria. 

MTF transgender athletes are not prohibited from competing or participating in sports altogether. There are alternatives available. They are still free to participate in men's sports, co-ed leagues, or recreational leagues, as well as in private clubs or leagues that allow them access. This policy is context-specific, proportional, and based on relevant characteristics, making it a case of principled exclusion rather than oppression. 

Importantly, this discussion is about structures and rules, not the worth of any individual. Transgender people should be treated with dignity, just like everyone else. At the same time, biological women should also be treated with dignity, which is why they should be allowed to compete on a fair and level playing field, even if that means excluding MTF transgender athletes. 

Freedom of Association, Positive Discrimination, and Why Exclusion Happens Daily without Malice

When we hear words like "discrimination" and "exclusion," they are framed in a negative context and are often seen as something that we should not do. Freedom of association is an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and also determines who we spend our time with. For freedom of association to work, you need positive discrimination.

The fact of the matter is that we accept positive discrimination as a normal and daily part of life, even without realizing it or viewing it as malicious. We naturally prioritize our loved ones, whether it is family or friends, over strangers when it comes to our time, resources, and attention. We choose whom to befriend, whom to date, whom to hire (if you run a business or are a hiring manager), and whom to help, all at the exclusion of others. Here are a few examples of when that discrimination comes into play in real life: 

• Religious institutions typically define participation or membership based on religious identity. It is not a denial of religious freedom of non-practitioners of a given religion, but protecting the associational and spiritual integrity of the community. 
• Ethnic clubs, heritage societies, and cultural centers often limit membership to members of the in-group. Since the goals of such organizations are cultural preservation, support networks, and shared experience, inclusion of outsiders can undermine the purpose that the group is meant to provide. 
• Professional associations and fraternities/sororities define membership based on criteria, whether it is profession, skill, or gender. The exclusion protects the purpose and experience for intended members.
• With charitable giving, you give to a cause that means something to you. By extension, you choose to not give to other causes, i.e., you exclude other charities from your giving. Being forced to give to all causes equally would violate your freedom to direct your resources as you wish. 
• LGBT centers exist to provide community and safety for a marginalized group. Allowing people outside of that demographic dilutes the space's purpose and its sense of security. 
• Employers select employees based on skills, experience, and cultural fit. An employer is not obligated to hire anyone who submits a job application. 
• In romantic relations, you choose someone you're attracted to and whose values, interests, and/or personality align with yours. You cannot coerce romance without destroying the meaning of romance and what makes it so special. This is why I took such an issue with the argument of "not dating a trans person is transphobic." A similar argument can also be made with friendship and why you cannot be forced to be friends with just anybody. 

Why Women's Sports Exist and Why Biology Isn't Optional

Women's sports are not an exception to this rule when it comes to freedom of association or positive discrimination. They operate on the same principle. I brought this up in my 2019 analysis of MTF transgender athletes in women's sports, but it merits repeating. Women's sports exist because in most sports, biological differences matter. 

It does not matter what type of cosmetic surgery one undergoes, how many hormones are taken, what government paperwork is altered, or how one decides to live their life. Biological reality does not disappear through identification or medical intervention. Gender identity is a societal construct, but biological sex (or simply sex) is not. Male-to-female transgender individuals remain biologically male, even after transition, and no amount of identifying otherwise changes that reality. Another way to frame this is that MTF transgender individuals are a subset of men, in spite of their best efforts. 

This should be an obvious observation of reality because MTF transgender individuals transitioning does not erase the biological advantages they incurred. The physical differences between men and women were apparent in the caveman days, but now we have the ability to measure them more precisely. As I brought up in 2019, men have greater lean body mass, larger hearts, higher cardiac outputs, larger hemoglobin mass, larger VO2 max, greater glycogen utilization, and higher anaerobic capacity. The Journal of Applied Physiology acknowledged biological realities in a study last year (Joyner et al., 2025; see infographic below). Another study, this one from Sports Medicine, shows how testosterone suppression for MTF transgender athletes has minimal effect and how the other advantages are still maintained (Hilton and Lundberg, 2021). 

I am not here to rattle off the entire evidence base on the topic, but I do want to make an observation. If there were no biological difference, there would be a more symmetrical effect observed in men's sports and women's sports. The truth is that an FTM transgender individual, which de facto is a subset of women, entering men's sports is not controversial because odds are that said athlete will not have a distinct biological advantage over men. 

Why Women's Sports Are a Protected Space

Women's sports exist precisely because biological and physiological differences between men and women matter. Without a protected space, women would be crowded out of meaningful sports participation, not by malice, but by reality. Open competition would systematically favor male physiology, leaving women with fewer opportunities to compete, succeed, and develop as athletes.

Women's sports exist to prevent that outcome. Women's sports are not some arbitrary carve-out, but a deliberate response to biological inequality. Excluding MTF transgender athletes is not a moral condemnation of transgender individuals or an act of cruelty for its own sake. It is an acknowledgment that not every space can serve every individual. When women's sports are no longer permitted to draw sex-based boundaries, it ends up undermining and eroding the very purpose that such a space was created for women in the first place. 

When Ideology Collides with Biological Reality

Women's sports is arguably the clearest example of where gender identity theory collides with biological reality. In many policy debates, whether trans women are women or not comes off as abstract. With athletics, it is observable and immediately apparent that they are not truly women. That clarity creates discomfort and cognitive dissonance for those who falsely believe that trans women are women, making it difficult to rationalize it away. For those who treat gender identity as fully substitutable for biological sex, this fight is more than being about athletic competitions or whether transgender people deserve dignity. Conceding limits in athletics and acknowledging biological reality would mean acknowledging the absurdity of the entire gender identity framework, particularly that gender identity overrides biological sex. Rather than lose face, activists and politicians continue to double down, even at the expense of their own credibility since it is the path of least resistance.

The Stakes for Sex-Based Rights

Letting gender ideology win this battle is more than about women's sports. Last August, I brought up how kowtowing to gender identity creates conceptual and legal incoherence. If sex is no longer an objective category, then any institution or rights organized around biological sex becomes indefensible. When sex is treated as a feeling rather than a fact, many aspects of women's rights and gay rights become negotiable, whether that is women's sports or same-sex marriage. Women's sports are a clear casualty of such an approach, as is illustrated by the 2024 United Nations report that estimated that female athletes have lost over 890 medals to transgender athletes. 

The moment that biological sex is replaced by the subjective self-identity that is gender identity is the moment that sex-based protections and spaces collapse. The question before the Supreme Court is not whether transgender people should be treated with dignity (to reiterate, they should), but whether sex-based rights are allowed to remain real. If biological sex is optional, women's sports and any other sex-based space or rights are also optional. As such, I hope that the Supreme Court rules in favor of women's sports over gender ideology.

Nonbinary and Nonsensical?: Gender Identity Should Not Shape Public Policy or the Law

How people perceive identity has shifted in recent years. Sex, gender, and social roles used to be debated in terms of biology, behavior, or politics. These days, it has become more prevalent to define identity in terms of internal feelings, truths only known to the self, getting to the point where some demand external recognition of that identity. This shift in how identity is perceived is clearest in the concept known as "nonbinary." How I understand the concept of nonbinary is as a gender identity that is characterized by a rejection of, or identification outside of, the binary framework of man and woman, which can encompass diverse gender experiences. Nonbinary resists the classification of man and woman not through visible and external nonconformity, but rather a personal and internal sense of disconnect.

Yesterday, I was reading an article from U.K. media outlet Spiked Online titled The dark truth behind the 'nonbinary' identity. It is criticizing how an individual identifying as nonbinary is trying to get the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to legally recognize nonbinary as a category, even as the United Kingdom has rejected this individual's claim. It got me thinking about the whole concept of nonbinary.

 

What is logically wrong with nonbinary? I will start off by saying this is not a critique of individuals that identify as nonbinary, nor is it a dismissal of their personal experiences. As we will see later, the critique is how the concept of nonbinary identity, and the concept of gender identity more broadly, is being used to shape legal categories.

For much of history, the debate about identity essentialism was based on biological sex. Now it is based on the subjective experience of something along the lines of "I am nonbinary because I have always felt this way, and that feeling is the truth of who I am." Here is where the idea logically runs into a problem. If someone says they are not a man or a woman, but then does not define those categories or says "I reject all gender roles," what in the world does it mean to be nonbinary?  It is akin to saying something is neither red nor blue without saying what red or blue are. If you cannot describe the thing you are not, how can you meaningfully claim to not be it? 

There is no coherent way to socially define nonbinary identity because it has become more of a catch-all term rather than a clear concept.  How an individual feels discomfort with a certain set of gender stereotypes does not negate their biological sex. Nonbinary only makes sense when adhering to an overly rigid societal and stereotypical definition of what a man or a woman are supposed to be. There are very few, if any, people who perfectly embody these gender stereotypes. In this respect, nonbinary identification is less about embracing a coherent identity and more about avoiding the discomfort that comes from not fitting neatly into traditional gender expectations or roles. But this discomfort does not constitute a new identity, and should not require one. 

I can anticipate someone bringing up other identities, such as sexual orientation or religion, in which self-identification is claimed to be the basis for that identity. But that is not the case. Same-sex attraction is observable in behavior, whether sexual or romantic. While religion has a component of belief, religion can be observed through such behaviors as prayer, attending a house of worship, observing dietary laws, or celebrating holidays. While identity does not necessarily require material observability, having some definable or external features helps give it shape. Without conceptual clarity or internal coherence, an identity cannot meaningfully function as a societally recognizable or analytically useful category. It is on this front that the nonbinary identity conceptually and intellectually falls flat.

What is wrong with the concept of gender identity? This gets into where I take issue with gender identity generally. I will start with what I wrote in June about gender identity with regards to the U.S. Supreme Court case on gender-affirming "care": 

The concept of gender identity is incoherent. It is claimed to be based on objective truth, but it can be changed on one's subjective whim. Gender identity is supposed to be a societal construct, but somehow is simultaneously biological and internal. Gender identity is identified as independent of biological sex but is also identified in reference to biological sex. It is designated based on self-expression but also as a product of socialization.

This incoherence comes from the fact that if something has "X" quality, it cannot simultaneously have "non-X" quality. It is how gender identity proponents define a woman using the circular logic of "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman." Similar to nonbinary, the way it is being defined (or not defined, as the case may be) is intellectually unstable because it relies on internal contradictions, not to mention being unverifiable and unfalsifiable. As I detailed in April after the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that only biological women are actually women, I explained how simply because you feel like something or identify as something does not automatically make you that identity, as is the case with race, age, or species. In spite of how one feels about their biological sex, it ultimately does not change their biological sex or the fact that they cannot change their biological sex. 

How Gender Identity Adversely Affects Society and Erodes Rights. Gender identity relies on an internal experience without external reference. If an identity is purely self-defined with no stable criteria, it becomes incoherent for public understanding or policy. As I brought up in June, "human rights and legal protections cannot be based on something as unintelligible, muddled, and disjointed as gender identity." It is de facto impossible to build social, legal, or medical policy based on such ambiguity, as we will see shortly. 

There are certain instances where gender identity causes harm. Here are some examples, first in a medical policy context. One big one is gender-affirming care, which has been shown to cause patients harm. This is why I am against the practice for minors and only support the practice for adults if there is informed consent, even in spite of known harms. There are more general medical implications, as well. By diagnosing on gender identity instead of biological sex, patients can miss life-saving screenings or being treated with protocols misaligned with their biology. Then there is the undermining of sex-based data collection which can determine sex-based disparities in such areas as crime, health, or education, thereby eroding our ability to identify and address such problems. 

Policies that mandate pronoun usage or compel pronoun usage, a practice that  I criticized in 2022, has a chilling effect on freedom of speech in terms of forcing pronouns, as well as putting stress on parents and teachers in an education setting. It also affects speech in terms of changing such terms as "mother" and "female" to "birthing parent" and "assigned female at birth," which either depersonalize biological realities or erode the cultural and political significance of women. 

Speaking of the significance of women, feminism and women's rights are rooted in material conditions tied to female biology. Women's sex-based rights depend on a stable, material definition of what a woman is. Without that tie, protections for women are undermined, such as is the case with Title IX in the United States. It is how biological men playing in women's sports has become such a contentious topic. Similarly, biological men have been allowed into women-only shelters or prisons based on self-reported identities that cannot be tested or disproved, which can put the lives of women at risk. 

A similar argument could be made for the erosion of gay rights. As I have argued before, when discussing how refusing to date a trans person is not transphobic, "being gay has meant rejecting a strict definition of gender norms while still claiming biological distinction vis-à-vis same-sex attraction." Same-sex attraction depends on the premise that sex is real, binary, and materially grounded. A gay man is attracted to other men. A lesbian is attracted to other women. For gay people, the biological categories of "man" and "woman" are not fluid or interchangeable. They are necessary anchors for same-sex relations to work. Those anchors are based in biological sex, not gender identity. To demand that [gay] people date or have sex with those who are not of the same biological sex (including trans people) undermines the concept of sexual orientation. Since gender identity detaches "man" and "woman" from biological sex, it becomes a form of gay erasure because being gay loses meaning. 

By prioritizing logical consistency and material categories, we can preserve the credibility and coherence of legal rights. As we see, gender identity undermines the very foundations upon which women's rights and gay rights were built. Sexual orientation and sex-specific protections are based on meaningful and stable categories. Disability benefits require medical diagnosis and documentation. Even mental illness requires a DSM-based diagnosis by a professional. In contrast, gender identity is subjective and exempt from scrutiny or verification. If subjective identity is the sole criterion for legal rights or classification, where does that principle end? What about identifying as a different species, race, or age? If it is wholly subjective, then there is no limiting principle in the law. As I brought up in April, we cannot protect human rights if we cannot do so on the basic of reality or what humans are. To quote political commentator Ben Shapiro, "Facts don't care about your feelings."

Postscript. On a personal level, subjective identity is fine. I do not care on a personal level because it does not hurt anyone, which is in line with the libertarian concept of the nonaggression axiom. People should be free to live and express themselves as they choose, regardless of how much it corresponds to reality. After all, people live their lives viewing and conceptualizing things contrary to reality all the time. My concern is not with personal identification per se, but with how these identities are being formalized into legal and institutional frameworks without clear definitions or limiting principles. Legal rights, access to services, and social categories all require shared and observable standards. Other legal categories have objective criteria by which identity can be determined. Gender identity generally, and the nonbinary identity in particular, lacks that verifiable structure that makes it disastrous in philosophical, logical, legal, and practical terms. At a minimum, how are you supposed to create a legal classification for a demographic that refuses to define itself?

When all is said and done, rights that depend on shared reality cannot be sustained by individual perception alone. When legal and social frameworks abandon objectivity in favor of subjective identity, they risk becoming unworkable, incoherent, and ultimately unjust. Critiquing how an identity is defined and used in law is not the same as attacking the dignity of individuals. People deserve respect and dignity, but so do the legal and material foundations on which our rights depend. Upholding clear, observable, and materially grounded standards is not an act of exclusion. It is a foundation for fairness and justice. If we want to protect the rights that so many have worked hard for, then we need to defend those categories to ensure that those rights stay intact, which means not legally recognizing gender identity as a category.  

San Francisco's "Equity Grading" Is an Example of Why Schools Need to Purge Equity from Teaching

Late last month, San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Superintendent Maria Su publicized that the SFUSD was going to start using "equitable grading." You can read the SFUSD proposal for yourself, but SFUSD was looking to remove such traditional metrics as homework completion, class participation, and attendance in favor of summative assessments focused on "learning mastery," whatever that means. In addition, SFUSD proposed lowering the grading where an 80% was an A and a 41% a C. Popularized by author Joe Feldman, the purpose of "equitable grading" is to not have students be compliant automatons, but able to show critical thinking and deep understanding. Although San Francisco is an exceptionally Left-leaning city, the framework was yanked before it even began due to the political pressure.

For those of us who are not woke and attribute every disparity to racism and discrimination, it becomes clear as to why "equitable grading" is not a good idea. As the above implies, "equitable grading" incentivizes students to do the minimum required. To quote analysts over at the Fordham Institute, "Ability and behavior go hand in hand in determining success, which is probably why course grade point average has historically been such a powerful predictor of later success." 

The analysts also pointed out how there is ample evidence to show that not grading homework or allowing for unlimited test retakes does not work (e.g., Tyner and Petrilli, 2018; Lichtman-Sadot, 2016; Barua and Vidal-Fernandez, 2014; Vidal-Fernandez, 2011). Another working paper shows that more lenient grading resulted in higher GPAs, but did not translate into better student achievement or attendance (Bowden et al., 2023). To quote the Fordham Institute again, "Moreover, there is not an iota of evidence that reforms making grading more lenient benefit students in the long run." 

This idea hardly floors me. The fact that rewards and punishment are consequences of human behavior that shapes human action is an essential part of behavioral sciences. In 2018, I analyzed the high college dropout rate and illustrated how academic preparedness in high school was a strong predictor of whether a college student would drop out. After all, if you do not show the ability or motivation to show up and put in the effort as a child, there is a good chance that it will be difficult for you to do so as you get older. Deadlines are shown to accelerate a child's developmental process in their executive skills (Dawson, 2021) and "grades are shown as an effective means of motivating students (e.g., Gershenson et al., 2022; Gershenson, 2020; Docan, 2006; Figlio and Lucas, 2004; Betts and Grogger, 2003)." Watering down expectations to the point of reducing motivation and accountability harms the students that the "equity grading" was meant to help in the first place. 

I bring this topic up because SFUSD is not the first major school district to try this inanity. Due to the COVID-era school closures and their deleterious effects on achievement levels and student attendance that still persist, other such school districts as San Diego and Montgomery County, Maryland. While I understand teachers and principals trying to find ways to rectify the situation, equitable grading is not the way to go about it, as previously illustrated. What is more is that grading is not the only facet of K-12 education that this equity nonsense has reared its ugly head. 

I have criticized removing honors classes, the time when the state of Oregon suspended its basic skills requirement, and the insidious critical race theory that perpetuates racism. Knowledge and skills gained through education are a major predictor of one's wellbeing and quality of life as an adult. To allow for equity to come in and erode the quality of education in the United States is not only a threat to the individual students, but also the vitality of the United States to the point one could argue that equity is a national security threat. Moments like San Francisco's equity grading show us that woke influences are still with us. If we truly want to make education great again, we need to replace the mediocrity, laxness, and catering of feelings so prominent with the equity crowd by embracing academic rigor and valuing effort and good conduct once more. Otherwise, equity will continue to steamroll the U.S. education system. 

King Charles Shows Us That Land Acknowledgments Are Performative and Virtue-Signaling

Last week, King Charles III of England made a trip to Canada to deliver the speech from the throne, which set out the agenda for the new Liberal government of Canada. This is the third time in Canada's history in which the British monarch delivered Canada's throne speech, the other two which were during Queen Elizabeth II's reign. During this speech, King Charles began with the following:

I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. This land acknowledgment is a recognition of a shared history as a nation. While continuing to deepen my own understanding, it is my great hope that in each of your communities, and collectively as a country, a path is found toward truth and reconciliation, in both word and deed.

This sort of statement is known as a land acknowledgement. A land acknowledgment is a formal statement that recognizes and respects indigenous people as the traditional stewards of the land. It is supposed to be a way to honor the original inhabitants of the land while acknowledging the subsequent effects of displacement. While they are intended to show respect and promote reconciliation, they act as nothing more than a performative gesture. 

Let us start with the reality that for much of history, conquest was a widely accepted means of acquiring land. The modern day concept of property rights (e.g., John Locke, Adam Smith), as well as international law stating that conquest is not a legitimate means of acquiring land (e.g., UN Charter, Article 2(4)), is relatively new. As reprehensible as the actions of Christopher Columbus, Hernán Cortés, and Francisco Pizarro were by modern standards, white people do not have a monopoly on violence, brutality, or colonization. 

The Iroquois partook in aggressive warfare, whether through the Beaver Wars or mourning wars. The Crow Creek Sioux tribe had the Crow Creek Massacre in the 1300s, which killed about 500 people. The Inca Empire was created by a combination of peaceful assimilation and conquest for those who did not accept Inca rule peacefully. The Aztecs fought large-scale wars to expand their empire, as well as partook in ritualized violence and human sacrifice. The Māori tribe of New Zealand committed mass murder, enslavement, and cannibalism of the Moriori people. Then there was Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Aurangzeb of the Mughal Empire, the creation of the Ottoman Empire, the Achaemenid Persian Empire, and the Songhai Empire in western Africa, to name a few. 

If I were a betting man, I would say that everyone has at least one ancestor who partook in conquest of some sort or fashion. Why? Violence, colonization, and conquest made up much of pre-modern history, regardless of race or ethnicity. Some were simply more effective and brutal than others. Rather than acknowledge historical reality, it provides another opportunity for woke people to oversimplify racial relations into the racist and inaccurate claim of "White people = bad; minorities = good." History is more complicated than that and there are brutes across all races and ethnicities. 

For argument's sake, I will be a good sport about it and give the a benefit of a doubt. Let us assume for a New York minute that the indigenous people are unquestionably the rightful owners of the land. If so, there is another major issue that arises. The purpose of these land acknowledgements is reconciliation. Do land acknowledgments lead to genuine reconciliation? 

Ever since the beginning of modern-day land acknowledgments in the late 1970s, there has not been a single land acknowledgment that has resulted in the restoration of land ownership to indigenous nations or the establishment of indigenous governance over ancestral territories. What these land acknowledgements are in practice is being akin to someone stealing your possessions, writing a half-hearted, hand-written note admitting to the theft, and then doing nothing to either return the possessions or compensate you for the loss. How does that show respect for the aggrieved party? 

It is even more mind-boggling to do a land acknowledgment for a tribe that no longer exists as a distinct, unified entity, whether that is the Yamasee, Susquehannock, or the Massachusett tribe. To reconcile is to restore a sense of peace or harmony between both parties. Short of a Casper the Friendly Ghost situation, you cannot reconcile with a group of people that no longer exist.    

In the Canadian case cited at the beginning of this piece, it is not as if King Charles were a plebeian with zero clout. Although the monarch of England is largely a ceremonial role, he is still on the throne of one of the world's largest powers. If these land acknowledgments were meant to be about actual reconciliation and compensation, something of substance should have come about as a result of these land acknowledgements. 

The lack of outcomes as a result of land acknowledgements show how hollow and disingenuous land acknowledgments truly are. If you actually want to make a difference, put your money where your mouth is. Either give the aggrieved party their land back (or at least some form of compensation to help out indigenous people) or shut your hole. Otherwise, the moral exhibitionism that is land acknowledgement is as feel-good and useless as using plastic straws or recycling.

UK Supreme Court Acknowledges Biological Reality That Only Biological Females Are Women

Henry Ford once said that "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right." The premise behind his quote was that the power of mindset and belief in terms of achieving goals. Cultural relativists have taken that concept to a whole new level with gender identity. While biological sex refers to one's chromosomes, hormones, organs, and anatomy, gender identity proponents argue that gender identity pertains to "one's inner sense of being male or female," i.e., inner self-perception. Under this framework, gender identity aligns with one's biological sex for the vast majority of people. However, there are a small minority of people for whom there is a disconnect between biological sense and gender identity, which is where gender dysphoria comes into play. The diagram below summarizes the differences. 

As this diagram illustrates, the idea of biological sex and gender identity are, at least conceptually, two different things. Even if that were the case, where the left took a turn to Looneyville is by conflating the two and asserting that your gender identity is biological reality to the point where denying someone's gender identity is tantamount to bigotry. Under this schema, you can become a man or woman (or however you choose to identify) simply by identifying as one. It is how those in the trans rights or trans activism world and its allies support biological men playing in women's sports, supporting gender-affirming "care" when the evidence base is anything but affirming, or ironically (or maybe that is unironic) being homophobic enough to insist that gay people should date trans people lest they be branded transphobes. 

This concept of gender identity brings us to current events. Last week, the United Kingdom's Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the case of Women Scotland Ltd. vs The Scottish Ministers that the word "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to male and female, as determined by biology. While those on the Left view it as an indictment of how prevalent anti-trans sentiment has spread, I view it as a win of reality over adhering to ideology. The ruling is a reminder that acknowledging biological reality is not a form of bigotry and that no amount of bureaucracy can transform a man into a woman.  To quote media outlet Spiked Online: 

"Cosmetic surgery and a piece of paper don't make a man a woman any more than a deep desire to be female does. Besides, gender identity has always just been about feeling and pronouncement. It is not a concrete, verifiable, or coherent concept." 

Gender identity is neither concrete nor coherent. 

Those who profess the importance of gender identity treat it as some sort of objective truth, but that it can also be changed at one's subjective whim. And if you do not accept the new gender identity, you will get labeled a bigot like J.K. Rowling did. If gender identity were that concrete, they would have come up with a definition of "what is a woman" that does not rely on the circular logic of "a woman is someone who feels like a woman." Not that I agree with Matt Walsh on everything, but this circular logic was the whole point of his documentary "What Is A Woman?" This adherence to ideology would explain why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson could not provide a definition of a woman at her confirmation hearing. 

The fact that some on the Left argue that gender is a social construct and others argue that gender identity is internal and biological further illustrates its incoherence. After all, if your genitals do not establish your gender, then why does removing them affirm your gender? Gender cannot be simultaneously a social construct and inherent to the individual. It cannot simultaneously exist as self-chosen and a product of socialization. Nor can gender simultaneously be independent of sex and defined in reference to sex.

This particular incoherence puts the LGBT community in a real bind. If the idea of "man" and "woman" are based on biological sex, then LGB is intelligible and the T makes less sense because then the definitions of "man" and "woman" are based on sexual attraction. If being a "man" or "woman" is not tied in biology or physical form, then sexual attraction/orientation or being LGB is no longer intelligible. This point came up when I wrote a piece last year showing how advocating for the trans community and kowtowing to every demand of trans activists means a path towards gay erasure.

Simply because you feel something or identify as someone does not automatically make it so. 

I have an affinity for the Latino world and my Spanish is good enough where I have passed for Argentinean on multiple occasions. I do not going around claiming that I am Latino, even when there are days that I wish I were Latino. If anything, I correct people when they call me Latino because the truth is that my ancestors are from northern and central Europe. Someone who is 50 or 60 years old who identifies as 16 does not magically become a teenager by simply wishing they were younger or identifying as a teenager. Since those who believe in gender ideology opened the Pandora's box in terms of "your identity is your reality," I can go as far as saying that if a friend of mine were to identify as a cat, I would not congratulate him/her and go out to buy a scratch pole and litter box. I would be legitimately concerned for their mental health. 

Truth and words matter. 

Trans activists argue that trans issues only affect those who identify as "trans men" or "trans women," but this affects everyone because truth and what constitutes as a fact are on the line. What is the harm by linguistically accommodating someone by using their preferred pronouns or chosen name? 

If a consenting adult wants to undergo gender affirming surgery, I do not mind as long as it is done with informed consent. I wish those who are dealing with gender dysphoria the best in overcoming or at least learning to live with the dysphoria. I am against this procedure for children because a) the evidence base does not show significant benefit while there are considerable harms and b) over 80 percent of adolescents that experience gender dysphoria outgrow it by their adulthood without medical or surgical intervention. Both points undermine the need for such procedures as a norm rather than an exigent exception. Part of being libertarian is allowing consenting adults to do what they want with their lives as long as they are not harming others, and that includes transgender individuals, but I am getting off track. I am okay with transgender people serving in the military, I think a transgender bathroom ban is unnecessary, and I believe that transgender individuals should be able to participate in society without having to deal with discrimination, much like with other minorities or disenfranchised individuals. 

What I take issue with is that we are being asked is to accept a lie. As much as gender-reassignment surgery could be helpful for a small minority of those dealing with gender dysphoria, and as much I try to imagine the struggle of those undergoing gender dysphoria, it does not change the reality that surgery does not magically turn a man into a woman, or vice versa. 

How we navigate, describe, and refer to the world matters if we want to observe an objective reality. It is with that discernment that we can best identify problems in public policy and in society, as well as come up with solutions. After all, how can we protect human rights if we are not doing so on the basis of reality or what humanity entails? It does no one any good to perpetuate a lie, especially if your political posturing is that of "follow the science." As Ben Shapiro would say, "Facts don't care about your feelings." 

The fact that we even need to have a Supreme Court ruling to declare a basic biological truth that has been obvious across civilizations and centuries, not to mention in the animal kingdom, shows how much global society has devolved in recent years. Up is down, terrorists are freedom fighters, and men are women. Welcome to 2025! It is good to see people stand up to the relativism. As much gaslighting as there has been with "transmen are men" and "transwomen are women," more people are waking up instead of being woke. 

We should wake up because our freedom of speech and expression are at stake. Self-assured social movements have no need of censorship -- only the morally unsure and intellectually insecure require such brute instruments. It would explain why the trans rights movement leans on censorship and conformity to try to get its way. Contrast that with the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, or the gay rights movement that did not have to resort to such tactics. 

The UK Supreme Court ruling is another data point that shows that the Far Left went too far with gender ideology and to reaffirm that manhood or womanhood are more than a matter than self-identify or what legal paperwork might say. I do not want there to be a backlash that results in violence against trans individuals, but I also want a world where we can speak truth to power and not feel intimidated in speaking out simply because disagreeing with one’s perception of the world or oneself is too much for someone to handle. I hope this Supreme Court ruling is an indication that freedom of expression is heading the right direction in terms of there being less authoritarianism, less ideological overreach, and greater free speech for all. 

The U.S. Political Left Is Neither Liberal Nor Progressive: What to Call the Political Left?

A trend I have noticed over time and has been particularly notable during since the pandemic is that the political Left in the United States has been veering further and further to the Left. It got me thinking of how the Left has self-identified. Two terms that the Left has used in recent political history to describe itself are liberal and progressive. By examining the etymology of these words along with how the U.S. political Left has evolved, we will see that it does not make sense to use either of these terms. 

The word "liberal" comes from the Latin liber, which means free(man). A secondary meaning in premodern times pertained to being generous. The word liberal first became used in a political context in the 1770s. Adam Smith used "liberal" for the term to describe a market-based economy based on free trade, voluntarism, and mutually beneficial exchange. Classical liberalism advocated for the free market, laissez-faire economics (including property rights), civil liberties, limited government, and political and economic freedoms. In the United States, classical liberalism is most commonly associated with someone who is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," or a libertarian. 

Using the word "liberal" suggests that the U.S. political Left cares about people being free. There are some issues for which the Left cares about freedom, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and marijuana. However, as I pointed out when criticizing the usage of the label "pro-choice," their application of pro-choice is quite inconsistent. They are more likely to be against freedom when it comes to owning a firearm or appliances and vehicles it deems harmful to its crusade against climate change. It surely does not apply when they advocate for high rates of taxation and do not allow for citizens to be free to do what they want with their money. 

The Left has also been veering away from freedom of speech. Per Pew Research survey data, Democrats are much more likely to want to use the government to restrict what it perceives as misinformation, or in other words, increased support for censorship. As I illustrated last week, those who adhere to the framework of DEI initiatives are more likely to be authoritarian and want to punish those disagree with their ideology. Wanting to cancel those with alternative views and embracing cancel culture is not exactly one of tolerance. Then there is the Left's obsession with collective rights over individual rights, which is another radical departure from classical liberalism. And then there's trying to pack the Supreme Court or getting rid of the Electoral College because it doesn't work in the Democrats' favor. 

The word progress comes from the Latin progressus, an advance. This comes from the verb progredi (pro, which means forward; and gradi, which means to walk). The Left conveniently takes on this label because it suggests that their platform means that we as a society move forward. When you examine much of their policy prescriptions, it is anything but. 

I do not want to paint with such a broad stroke because people on the Left exist on a political spectrum, much like those of other political persuasions. However, on an economic level, there has been a greater call for more tax and spend. Kamala Harris called for eliminating the fossil fuels and private health insurance markets. There are very few politicians on the Left that are concerned with addressing the U.S. federal debt or shrinking the overall size of government. The inflation during the Biden Administration and diminishing the purchasing power of everyday Americans is not progress. 

Then there is the cultural aspect, which has become more identity-obsessed and zero-sum for the Left. Regarding DEI and race relations, abandoning colorblindness and obsessing over race to the point where "anti-racism" is its own racism is setting race relations back at least half a century, if not more. For the political Left, diversity is only skin-deep. Then I would argue that the political Left has learned something from the political Right, which is using fear as a weapon. They did it with COVID when advocating for lockdowns, face mask mandates, and school closures. They have done so with climate change. Calling Trump a fascist was also Harris' closing argument during the last presidential election, thereby stoking the fear of an authoritarian dystopia if Trump were elected. 

I feel like I can go on and on, but much of what constitutes as the mainstream U.S. political Left's agenda in neither liberating nor is it progress. If the terms liberal or progressive are inadequate, what should we call those who are on the Left? I generally refer to the entity as the "political Left" in attempts to cover anyone who is "left of center," regardless if they are woke or not. There is the term "leftist." On the one hand, the Right has pejoratively used the term "leftist." On the other hand, the same could be said about the term "liberal" starting in the 1970s. It might not be as endearing to the Left, but at least it is a more objective term. That would also mean that we would need to call those on the right "Rightists" because how much of the status quo are they actually trying to conserve these days? After all, the Spanish language makes this distinction with the terms izquierdista and derechista. 

Realistically, I would not expect this to catch on because the Left prefers the terms that put them in a more positive light. While I do not expect a linguistic shift in U.S. political discourse, I write this to illustrate the importance of how political labels can be used to deceive more than accurately describe. 

Study Unsurprisingly Shows DEI Initiatives Increase Hostility, Racial Tensions, and Authoritarian Tendencies

While diversity training has existed in some form since the 1960s, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) really took off in 2020 with the George Floyd protests and subsequent conversations about racial justice. Whether it was through the use of lectures, trainings, or educational materials, DEI was supposed to have such lofty goals as creating awareness of diversity, reducing bias, fostering a culture of respect, and empower individuals from historically underrepresented groups. 

It turns out that the theory behind DEI does not play out in practice. Earlier this month, a study released from the Network Contagion Research Institutes and Rutgers University (Jagdeep et al., 2024) found that DEI practices increased the likelihood of participants to be irrationally confrontational and antagonistic. This new study focused specifically on training that that emphasizes awareness of and opposition to "systemic oppression," which is a common topic from such lecturers as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. The themes that run common in the anti-racist work that the researchers analyzed are as follows:

1. White supremacy and racism are a systemic and nearly universal norm, mindset, or worldview. 
2. Normal institutions and Western ideologies are secretly enforcing racist agendas. White people are the intended beneficiaries. 
3. The universality of white supremacy agonizes people of color by virtue of endless hostile encounters. 
4. Western countries are compromised by virtue of their racist ideology and past. 
5. Anti-racist discrimination is the only solution to racist discrimination. 

What did the authors find? Across all groupings, the researchers found that instead of reducing bias, it engendered a "hostile attribution bias." This bias amplifies perceptions of bias where none existed, particularly when there is no evidence whatsoever of racism or discrimination (see below). This makes sense when you are told that racism lurks around every corner and is baked into our institutions. It explains why woke people cannot distinguish between correlation and causation when it comes to disparity. 

Not only did participants experience increased hostility, but they were more likely to punish perceived perpetrators (see below), whether that came in the form of protesting people, demanding public apologies, or calling for people to relocate. 

DEI training does not provide enhanced interracial interactions or camaraderie. There are baseless suspicions that encouraged punitive attitudes. What is even more alarming is that participants' levels of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) predicted an increased willingness to punish and higher hostile attributions. 

As the authors point out, this left-wing authoritarianism "may further create a culture of fear and rigidity instead of constructive change." No kidding! The negative effects of DEI do not surprise me. I first pointed this out in 2018 when analyzing the empirical literature on diversity training and how diversity training frequently backfires because focusing on race that much reinforces stereotypes rather than mitigates them. 

When I recently praised Matt Walsh for exposing the DEI scam in his documentary Am I Racist? (see here and here), I pointed out how DEI uses identity politics to emphasize differences over similarities of our common humanity. Even worse, DEI focuses on assigning blame rather than constructive solutions, as is the case with reparations. 

The anti-oppressive themes, elements, frameworks commonly used in modern-day mainstream DEI training that focus on victimhood and oppression are a scourge on society. As co-author Joel Finkelstein pointed out, they are bad ideas because they hurt people. Not only that, but they are prevalent, thereby exacerbating the effects. They create an unwarranted suspicion on our institutions, as is the case with the criminal justice system when there in fact is no systemic racism in criminal sentencing. 

It keeps society obsessed with race rather than create a colorblind, post-racial society. It is divisive as can be with having people focused on race, gender, sexual orientation, or another aspect of identity politics rather than learning to get along with those who are different. Thankfully, such major companies as Wal-Mart, Lowes, and Boeing are realizing its negative effects and I hope more people wake up to its harms. Research on the effects of DEI is important and we need more research like it because DEI lacks empirical support. At that same time, it illustrates something so obvious that I do not need research to discern, which is that DEI is a plague on society that needs to be excised posthaste. 

The Word "Latinx" Backfired with Latino Voters (And It Should Be No Surprise)

Although I am glad it is almost Election Day, I also think about election dynamics and how voting patterns change over time. The Latino population in particular comes to mind because of how much the Latino population has grown in recent years. As the Pew Research data indicate, the Hispanic population grew from 9.7 million in 1970 to 62.1 million in 2020. With a U.S. total population of 331.4 million in 2020, that would make the Hispanic population 18.7 percent of the U.S. population, a percentage that is anticipated to grow. 

While U.S. Latinos have a history of disproportionately voting Democrat (a lot of that having to do with immigration), those trends have shifted more Republican in the 21st century, as the data from Cornell University's Roper Center show. Why are Hispanic voters leaning more Republican? According to a new research paper from professors at Harvard and Georgetown Universities (d'Urso and Roman, 2024), one such explanation on why Latinos are more likely to vote Republican has to do with the term "Latinx."

For those who are unaware, "Latinx" is a gender-neutral alternative to the words "Latino" and "Latina" that was invented by activists in 2004 to describe those of Latin American descent. While it has existed since 2004, it started to gain traction among the political Left, celebrities, and activists in the mid-2010s. So-called "progressives" thought "Latinx" was to be this wonderful, inclusive term. It turns out that the term had the opposite effect on the vast majority of the Latino community, as the aforementioned study found.

Why was "Latinx" such a turn-off for Latinos that it made them more likely to vote Republican? The authors of the study believe it is "Identity-Expansion-Backlash Theory." The authors created the term to describe a theory in which Latinos are against the term "Latinx" because it is conservative and/or religious Latinos driving the trend. In other words, they believe that anti-LGBT bigotry in the Latino community is responsible for the backlash. More on that in a moment, but I want to ask something first.

Is every Latino on the planet going to embrace LGBT individuals with open, loving arms? Of course not! There is still machismo that is prevalent in Latino culture and homophobia is very much a real phenomenon in Latin America. But if it were truly that bad, there would not be multiple Latin American countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, including Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, and parts of Mexico. I am not here to say that views of LGBT individuals in Latin America are ideal. Latin American countries have not quite made the progress of the Western world, but it is miles ahead of Muslim-majority countries. Remember that a) there is not a Muslim-majority country that has legalized same-sex marriage, and b) there are multiple Muslim-majority countries that legally punish gay and lesbian individuals with jail time and/or execution. 

But I digress. Let us get back to why so many Latinos take issue with the term "Latinx." I first wrote on this topic in 2019 and again in 2022. Let me tell you there are multiple reasons to dislike the word "Latinx" that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anti-LGBT bigotry:

• The use of the letter "x" to denote a gender is foreign to the Spanish language.
• The suffix "-x" does not grammatically or orally correspond with the Spanish language. 
• This inoperability in the Spanish language excludes millions of Spanish speakers, not only working-class and everyday Spanish speakers, but also the nonbinary and gender-neutral Hispanics the term was purportedly meant to help. 
• Not only is it inoperable in Spanish, but it is clunky in English. Language is meant to be clear when communicated. "Latinx" fails at that endeavor spectacularly.
• "Latinx" is a term mainly used by Left-leaning, college educated, English-speaking individuals, Hispanic or otherwise. Not only does it come off as elitist and virtue-signaling, but it is not reflective or inclusive of the vast majority of the community it is supposed to represent. 
• It is condescending to have a group of people (predominantly white "progressives") to complain about colonialists having imposed cultural norms in the past all the while trying to come in and tell Hispanics, many of whom are working-class, how to speak Spanish and impose an Anglophone norm of "-x" in the process.  
• If proponents of "Latinx" had any cultural comprehension or awareness, they would know that there are such pan-ethnic terms as Hispanic and Latino, not to mention the fact that it is quite common for Latinos to self-identity by the country of origin rather than a pan-ethnic term. 

I wish that the authors of the paper, who both have PhDs, could be better with critical thinking and come up with a list of all possibilities for a given phenomenon instead of the one that supposedly confirmes their preconceived notions. But on the Far Left, everything is due to racism and bigotry. There cannot be any other possibility than bigotry. This explanation by the authors is both ideologically driven and unfalsifiable, not to mention a false and simplified view of a world that has complexity. I do not have a PhD, and yet I was able to come up with a solid list of reasons why "Latinx" is such a turnoff to the Spanish-speaking community in the United States without having to resort to the argument of bigotry.

“Latinx” has been around for two decades and it should be no mystery as to why most Latinos are not using it and why many dislike it. It is foreign to the Spanish language. It is downright weird to many Spanish-speakers to use a word like "Latinx" in the Spanish-speaking world, as polling from Pew Research in September indicates. It is the beginning of linguistic imperialism to impose such an Anglophone change on Spanish speakers, a classical instance of the pot calling the kettle black coming from the woke Far Left. 

Aside from my strong objections with the term "Latinx," I find it compelling that the word is reprehensible to a statistically significant number of Hispanics in the United States where they change their voting patterns in response to it. I can see why they would change their votes. "Latinx" is not about inclusion. It is telling Latinos that their culture, norms, language, and values are wrong, as the tone of the authors in this study convey. "Latinx" is not about one word. It is an attack on a way of life and a way of speaking an entire language. 

I am not saying that "Latinx" is the single most important issue in U.S. politics. Looking at Gallup polling, there are issues such as the economy (inflation in particular), immigration, crime, the federal budget, poverty, and housing affordability that make that list. What the findings with politicians' usage of the term "Latinx" does show is how disconnected the political Left is with the Latino community. It is emblematic of how the Far Left has taken a grip of the mainstream Left, particularly when it comes to language. If the mainstream Left does not want to be off-putting to Latino voters, it should abandon this linguistic locura to not come off as so extreme and instead find a way to speak to what is important to the vast majority of Latino citizens. 

Matt Walsh Documentary Exposes DEI for the Racism-Perpetuating Scam It Is (Part II)

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has become trendy in multiple circles. DEI is meant to be an organizational framework aimed at promoting the fair and inclusive participation of all people, particularly those who have historically been underrepresented. At first glance, DEI sounds like an acronym filled with lofty goals to improve racial and interpersonal relations. Proponents present it as an asset allowing for multiple perspectives and a learning opportunity to grow from those who are different from us. That sounds peachy in theory. But when the Far Left, woke crowd applies DEI to its "anti-racist" efforts, DEI becomes synonymous with the word "discrimination." The DEI proponents teach that white people are evil racists, racial minorities are hapless victims, and racism should be treated as an "irreducible, essential characteristic of the human condition...rather than a prejudice we can and must overcome." 

In his documentary "Am I Racist?", Matt Walsh exposes the over-simplistic backwardness of DEI and reminds us that DEI is as counterproductive as it is racist. Not only was I intrigued enough to watch it at the movie theater, but I have now written two blog entries about it. You can read Part I of this blog series at the link here. The only other time I have blogged on a movie was when I saw Everything, Everywhere, All at Once because I thought it was that prolific. In Part I, I first highlighted the crazy "anti-racist" moments in the documentary. I then pointed out how DEI backfires and perpetuates racism, followed by providing some analysis on the logical fallacies involved in a DEI mindset. I now resume with my criticism of DEI and the so-called "anti-racists."

DEI is a narrow-minded view that results in lousy problem-solving and public policy. My criticism of DEI proponents is more than a group of so-called "anti-racists" denying their own racism, biases, and general small-mindedness or basing their assertions with zero empirical evidence. By erroneously thinking that disparity automatically means racism, it not only means inaccurately diagnosing the problem. They have reduced complex social issues into a grossly inaccurate, oversimplified view of the world. 

With a warped view on how the world works, it means that the public policy recommendations will also be warped. For the folks obsessed with equity, their stated goal is to eliminate racial disparities. I hate to break it to these people, but there is always going to be inequality in the world. The fact that those on the Left have a harder time accepting that inequality and unfairness are an inherent part of reality is a reason why they are less happy than everyone else. In order to chase this fantasy, the DEI crowd uses puritanical and authoritarian measures in the hopes to expunge what they deem as impurities. In many ways, the adherents of DEI and "anti-racism" have significant parallels to fundamentalist religion.

DEI not only hurts white people and Asians, but also racial minorities. When I criticized Critical Race Theory (CRT), I pointed out that CRT also hurts students of racial minorities in addition to white students. Why? Because CRT propagates a toxic victimhood that patronizingly teaches that racial minorities are hapless victims stuck in their circumstances. This sort of victimhood keeps racial minorities trapped. Conservatives being more likely to reject victimhood and value resilience, personal control, and responsibility helps explain why they are on average happier than their liberal counterparts. 

As someone who used to work in K-12 education policy, I cannot help but notice how DEI and CRT have harmed minority students. I have written on two examples on how the DEI folk have used equity as a guise to dumb down education to make minorities feel better: removing honors classes and removing basic skills requirements in the name of equity. Not only is it insulting to insinuate that racial minorities are incapable of educational achievement and attainment, but DEI does nothing to help lift minority students up and succeed. What I find rich is when the woke Left blames the amorphous "system," especially when it comes to education. That irony tickles my funny bone because K-12 education is dominated by the woke Left, which means they are "the system" and, as previously mentioned, they are the problem that they do not want to have to look at in the mirror.  

If minorities overcome hardship and adversity, it means that DEI, and by extension, woke ideology, is a sham. This explains why the Left is willing to throw Asian-Americans under the bus when it comes to affirmative action, disparage those who exercise as right-wing extremists, or show disdain for the State of Israel while supporting Palestine. For minorities to use personal agency and responsibility while subsequently becoming stronger, more resilient, and happier human beings in spite of what they underwent is a smack in the face for a group of people for which the political is the personal. The cognitive dissonance for those who succumb to this sort of groupthink is too much for them to bear.

Postscript

With a brilliant use of humor, narrative, and straightforward questions, Walsh shows that DEI is not about diversity, equity, or inclusion; it is about conformity. DEI does not heal; it stirs up hate. DEI does not unite; it divides us further. The only winners from DEI are the grifters and those who feel a sense of moral superiority by adhering to this fundamentalism. Ultimately, the documentary is a comedic endeavor to expose the "anti-racism" consultants and DEI professionals for the grifters that they are, which is rich given how anti-capitalist and anti-profit the Far Left is. In that respect, Matt Walsh succeeded with flying colors. 

Walsh emphasizes the importance of us needing to stand up to the "anti-racism" grifters and stop obsessing over race. The fact that university faculty and best-selling authors have exploited racial shame and sowed racial disharmony to make a ton of cash for this long is unacceptable. Making assumptions about the entirety of an individual based on the superficial assessment of their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation is truly dehumanizing, yet that is a major underpinning of DEI. When the "anti-racists" argue that "colorblindness is racist", their statement that the color of skin is more important than content of character seeks to re-racialize this country and indeed the world.  

Something that I have noticed is that universities and corporations are beginning to abandon DEI initiatives. People are fed up with the counterproductive divisiveness, myself included. What I hope is that Matt Walsh's documentary provides more momentum to leave DEI in the ash heap of history where it belongs. Martin Luther King once taught us that we should judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Ultimately, we need to ditch the identity politics and this toxic Age of Grievance so we can embrace colorblindness once more if we stand a chance at living in a tolerant, post-racial world. 

Matt Walsh Documentary Exposes DEI for the Racism-Perpetuating Scam It Is (Part I)

I rarely have gone to the movie theater since the COVID pandemic. Last week, I went to see Matt Walsh's documentary "Am I Racist?", which has already ranked as the highest-grossing documentary this year at $9 million. I was both surprised and amused--surprised that people buy into white guilt and amused at the genius of how Walsh gave just enough rope to the anti-activists to hang themselves and expose their extremism, thereby discrediting themselves. I cannot remember the last time I laughed that hard. I really appreciated this comical take on the "anti-racist" crowd. Even Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle seemed to enjoy it enough. In the style of Borat, Walsh goes undercover to pretend he is a Diversity Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) specialist and sets up ruses to expose the DEI movement. A few gems from the documentary (Spoilers Contained):  

• So-called "progressive" white women pay $2,500 to attend a dinner hosted by anti-racist activists Saira Rao and Regina Jackson so they can be chided about how racist and privileged white women are. In the documentary, Rao and Jackson called Republicans Nazis and essentially called the United States an irredeemably racist hellhole that needs to be scorched.
• During the documentary, Walsh was interviewing Robin DiAngelo. In the middle of the interview, Walsh gives his black producer, Ben, some money as a form of reparations. Looking stunned and confused, DiAngelo goes to her purse and grabs $30 to give to Ben, although her honorarium for doing the interview was $15,000. She later was mad because she felt duped. She stated that solving reparations needed to be done on a systemic level. Maybe she was mad because it is not good for her business to be caught in her hypocrisy of not putting her money where her mouth is or exposing how much of a racket DEI really is. 
• In 2021, DiAngelo earned $728,000 from speaking gigs and workshops, nothing to say of book royalties (see DiAngelo's accountability statement here). It is not normal for someone to get paid for an interview, DiAngelo would not have taken $15,000. The fact that she does not openly take interviews to spread "the good word" suggests that DiAngelo's motive is financial. 
• Anti-racist activist and co-director for Black Lives Matter in Phoenix Sarra Tekola harassed two white male students in a multicultural center and accosted them trying to get them to leave. In the documentary, she ironically stated that all white people are racist and that we should abolish whiteness.  
• At the end of the documentary, Walsh hosted his own DEI training in which he earned $3,000. The training reached its apex of absurdity when Walsh pulled out whips so the attendees could engage in self-flagellation. What is even crazier is that some of the attendants were considering it. 

One of the features that Walsh illustrates is that with these DEI and anti-racism workshops, the demand for racism exceeds the supply. Pathological, white liberals and self-identifying "progressives" pay to be berated about de-centering whiteness, de-colonizing oneself, and not "tone policing" people. This level of gullibility means that DEI specialists can make money off of white guilt, which is illustrated by a global DEI 2022 market size of $9.4 billion. 

DEI makes racism and racial tensions worse.  As I brought up in 2018, there have been a plethora of studies done showing how diversity training and "implicit bias" training backfires (also read this article from Harvard Business Review here). Diversity training or dealing with "implicit bias" do not help with reducing prejudice. Apparently, the more you obsess over racial differences or publicly shame people for perceived "implicit bias," there ends up being more prejudice and less diversity. That makes sense given the obsession over race results in woke people being racist against white people in a way that eerily parallels Klan members. 

Even Mahzarin Banaji, who pioneered the research on implicit bias, wrote that "the typical DEI training doesn't educate people about bias and may even do harm" and that "people often leave diversity training feeling angry and with greater animosity towards other groups." Is it a surprise that Gallup polling shows a decline in race relations as DEI became more popular? No, because DEI is not about genuine reconciliation or moving past racism, but rather wallowing in racism. 

Not only is DEI discriminatory, but it perpetuates racism. Blaming everything on the nebulous, unfalsifiable concept of "systemic racism" means that the only solution in the woke mind is reverse discrimination. That is not merely my opinion. Anti-racist activist Ibram X. Kendi says that the only way to mitigate racist discrimination, and that the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. This traps us in a perpetual state of racism that does nothing to create a post-racial world. 

DEI tries to prop itself up using faulty reasoning.  For the DEI folk, they believe in collective guilt. This logical fallacy of guilt by association drives the inanity of the support for reparations. In addition to believing in collective guilt, it is not a question of whether racism took place in a given situation, but how it took place, which is a logical fallacy known as begging the question because the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion without any evidence. There is no room for alternative explanations in a given situation. As I will discuss further in Part II, not everything is caused by "systemic racism," whatever that unfalsifiable term means.

To solidify their moral high ground on their unfalsifiable accusations, the "anti-racist" grifters implement a logical fallacy known as a Kafka trap. What this logical fallacy entails is that someone who is accused of something and denies it is taken as evidence that they are the thing of which they are being accused. 

In this case, if you are a white person and you deny that you are racist, that denial is inaccurately taken as evidence that you are indeed racist. An example of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." No actual evidence of racism is required. Woke people claiming that all white people are racist is a) an example of the racism that they purport to be against, b) a way to trivialize actual racism, c) a rejection of such things as the scientific method and "innocent until proven guilty," and d) helps "anti-racists" avoid the counterfactuals and the massive amount of cognitive dissonance that comes with being "anti-racist." 

In Part II, I will discuss how DEI is problematic beyond perpetuating racism and how DEI does not mitigate racial tensions.