military

Clinton Crony Looms Large, Trump Embraces Shutdown, Parades & Priorities

February 7, 2018 by GregC

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America relish enjoy watching the credibility of the Steele dossier implode even further now that disreputable Clinton fixer Sid Blumenthal is being implicated for feeding information to Steele. They also shake their heads as President Trump says he would love a government shutdown unless he gets his way on border security just weeks after Republicans successfully convinced Americans that funding the government should not be contingent upon passing an immigration bill. And they have no problem honoring the U.S. military with a parade as President Trump wants to do, but Jim says there are more pressing national security concerns, including long-term funding and pay raises.

Awards: Underreported Stories, Overreported Stories, Best Stories of 2017

December 28, 2017 by GregC

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America focus squarely on the media in this episode of the Three Martini Lunch awards. They begin by discussing two massive stories that media either ignore or are severely downplaying – one overseas and one here in the U.S. Then they switch gears to reveal which stories received far too much coverage in 2017. Finally, they choose what they see as the best stories of the past year.

Court Rejects Transgender Military Ban

December 11, 2017 by GregC

A federal judge fully rejected the Trump administration’s proposed ban on transgender service in the military and also refused to delay the onset of transgender enlistment while the administration considers appealing the decision.

Back in October, federal judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected much of the Trump administration policy on transgenders in the military. On Monday, she ruled there was no compelling reason to for military to postpone enlistment of transgenders.

According to the Washington Post, Kollar-Kotelly said she “is not persuaded that defendants will be irreparably injured” by mandating that the Defense Department begin accepting applications on January 1.

“With only a brief hiatus, Defendants have had the opportunity to prepare for the accession of transgender individuals into the military for nearly one and a half years,” the judge added.

Family Research Council Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg says the judge’s decision is alarming on a number of fronts.

“I’m not terribly surprised given the obvious bias on the issue that she has shown. She has simply shown herself determined to impose her will upon the executive branch and not show any respect for the constitutional prerogatives that the president and the Defense Department have for making decisions regarding military personnel policy,” said Sprigg.

While not an attorney, Sprigg says Kollar-Kotelly’s legal reasoning seems backwards when it comes to the burden of proof in this case.

“She apparently said that there’s no emergency for the government, that it’s not going to cause any irreparable harm to the military if they begin this process.

“The standard is supposed to be the question, ‘Is there irreparable harm to the plaintiffs?’ I think that it hasn’t been demonstrated that there will be irreparable harm, particularly with respect to this issue of new recruits,” said Sprigg.

Without the policy being implemented, Sprigg says no plaintiff could be suffering irreparable harm.

“Where is the irreparable harm if someone who has not joined the military perhaps has to delay for three more months?” asked Sprigg.

In a brief statement, the Justice Department disagreed with the decision and said it was considering which legal steps to take next.

Sprigg hopes the DOJ appeals soon.

“I hope that the Justice Department would appeal this to a higher court and that they would consider at least giving a delay in the implementation, particularly of this portion of the policy,” said Sprigg.

Sprigg says that without a delay until the legal dispute is resolved, Kollar-Kotelly could be the one inflicting damage to transgenders seeking to serve in the military.

“If they are allowed to join the military beginning on January 1 and then the ultimate disposition of the case is that in fact that they can be discharged, you could argue that they would be worse off than if they had never been permitted to join in the first place,” said Sprigg.

He insists the effort to prevent transgenders from joining the military is entirely a question of readiness.

“The reason for this policy is not because the president or the Defense Department just does not like transgender people. It’s because they have a unique medical condition which make them ineligible for military service because they have limited deployability,” said Sprigg.

“To be fully deployable in military terms, you are supposed to be able to be sent anywhere in the world at any time without the need for specialized medical care. People that are undergoing transgender hormone therapy or have undergone gender reassignment surgery inherently have a need for specialized medical care,” he added.

With the Army suggesting and then scrapping an effort to allow recruits with some history of mental illness to enlist, the military revealed that it is struggling to meet recruitment goals. Sprigg says instead of pushing harder on a political agenda, recruiting numbers would probably improve.

“Perhaps if we moved away from these politically correct social engineering, then we would have an uptick in our overall recruiting picture,” said Sprigg.

Standard Podcast [ 8:08 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Boykin Rips Army’s ‘Insanity’

November 16, 2017 by GregC

The U.S. Army is rescinding its recently announced policy of allowing people with a history of mental illness to get waivers in order to serve in our military, a welcome move but one that should never have been necessary according to a former U.S. Army special forces commander.

Earlier this week, the Army announced it instituted a policy in August that allows waivers to be issued so that potential recruits could circumvent the ban on service members with a history of mental illnesses ranging from bipolar disorder to depression to self-mutilation and alcohol or drug abuse. The Army admitted the move was designed to boost sagging recruiting numbers.

On Wednesday, U.S. Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley said the Army is reversing course. Milley says the policy on waivers was never actually implemented but was being debates with the Army’s leadership.

Retired U.S. Army Lt. General William “Jerry” Boykin, who spent most of his career in special forces, says the Army is making the right call after entertaining a terrible idea.

“I will take the chief of staff of the Army’s word for the fact that it was still being studied but it’s disturbing that we’re even studying this,” said Boykin, who believes the Army’s sudden shift is due more to public relations than because it believes this was a terrible idea.

“I think they were unprepared for the blowback. I’m appalled that in a world that’s so transparent today you’d think you could do something like this and that this is not going to be a major story,” said Boykin.

He says the idea of allowing people with mental illness to serve in combat arms has never been embraced even when manpower was desperately needed.

“We didn’t even do this in Vietnam,” said Boykin, who says the biggest shift in standards was allowing GED recipients to serve rather than insist upon high school graduates.

“This is as low as the Army has ever dropped in terms of a lack of focus on readiness and quality people,” said Boykin. “It’s hard to brag that we have the highest quality people that we’ve ever had in our military – which our Army does regularly – and then look at the fact that we’re bringing people in that have a history of self-mutilation.”

Boykin says combat already takes a great toll on the mental health of our soldiers and that putting people with mental health problems into the fray is a recipe for disaster.

“Combat itself is probably the most stressful thing that a human can do. It;s not just the fear associated with it but it’s the long-term effects of seeing people that you care about die and be wounded in severe ways. That marks you.

“That has an effect on an individual that is different for each individual but ultimately becomes a very emotional thing. To bring people in that are already struggling is just insanity. It makes no sense,” said Boykin.

Boykin says the very top of our military’s chain of command can and must do better.

“I’m disappointed in the leadership of our military. Also, our president needs to step in and say, ‘Stop this nonsense. We’re not going to do this. We’ll do whatever we have to do to recruit a professional Army but we’re not going to do this nonsense,” said Boykin, who adds there is no way recruiters could weed out all the people with mental health issues who might pose a threat to themselves or members of their units.

One reason the military brass did not immediately kill the waivers idea is because they wouldn’t be tasked with dealing with problem recruits or the punishments related to their conduct.

A retired senior non-commissioned officer who served in Operations Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom who prefers to remain anonymous says it’s young officers and enlisted men who would be tasked with diagnosing these issues.

“The lowest level leadership are corporals, SGTs, SSGs, SFCs, lieutenants. All guys 18-24 years old, have no inkling how to spot a potential suicide or mass shooter. They’re also the guys that the command is going to hang out to dry if something happens for being “poor leaders” and not spotting something in time,” the Army veteran said.

He also says there is no protocol for dealing with mental health issues once a person is in the service.

“The low level leadership hasn’t been trained to deal with these people. There is “suicide prevention training” which is a joke, but it’s more oriented towards a normal guy that’s had too many deployments, combat stress or family issues – it’s not tailored at all to somebody that already mentally ill,” he said.

Boykin also also appalled that at the very time when mental health problems tend to be an issue in many mass shooters, yet the Army either decided or was close to deciding to give guns to people with some of those same diagnoses.

Boykin also says this slide in standards is an ongoing symptom of the way the Obama administration treated the military.

“It is a reflection of eight years under a commander-in-chief who paid no attention whatsoever to readiness of our military. That’s why you’re having trouble recruiting,” said Boykin.

“It’s because moms and dads during those eight years, when their son or their daughter had to give up their faith for example, or had to come in a military that was being used for social experiments, people got turned off to coming into the military,” said Boykin.

He says parents will have the same reaction to the Army considering allowing to people with a history of mental illness to take up arms.

Boykin urges the military to make all decisions based on one simple criteria.

“No decision regarding our military should be made until the question has been asked, ‘How does this impact the readiness?’ Is it a positive? If it’s a positive, it’s OK to do it. Is it a negative, it’s not alright to do it. If it’s neutral, then it could go either way. In this case, you have to know that this is a negative,” said Boykin.

But what if recruitment numbers aren’t met? Boykin says there are more important things.

“I’d rather go into combat with ten good men that were reliable that I could trust than a thousand that were questionable,” he said.

Boykin says a laser focus on readiness will make the U.S. military the dominant fighting force it always ought to be.

“We can turn this around. Stop the social experiments. Change the rules of engagement, where men and women can go into combat to win and restore the military budget to where they know that they have the necessary equipment to fight the nation’s wars and be victorious,” said Boykin.

Judge Halts Most of Trump Ban on Transgenders in Military

October 31, 2017 by GregC

A federal judge is placing injunctions on two critical aspects of President Trump’s ban on transgenders serving openly in the military, but a key supporter of Trump’s policy says the judge is jumping the gun since no has been harmed by the policy and appears to be sympathetic to the media’s perspective that this is a civil rights issue.

On Monday, Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly placed an injunction on Trump’s reinstatement of the ban and also blocked any ban on recruitment of transgenders. However, Kollar-Kotelly did not block Trump’s order not to use taxpayer dollars to pay for gender reassignment surgery and related treatments.

Kollar-Kotelly is a Clinton nominee to the federal bench, but was also a Reagan nominee for the D.C Superior Court earlier in her career. She gained widespread notoriety years ago as the judge in the government’s prolonged antitrust suit against Microsoft. The case is Jane Doe v. Donald Trump, as multiple unnamed transgender service members are behind the suit.

But given that the Obama administration unilaterally ended the ban on transgenders serving in the military, does the law side with Trump in his efforts to put the ban back in place? Family Research Council Senior Fellow in Policy Studies Peter Sprigg thinks so.

“I certainly think that this is an executive branch decision and not one for the courts to interfere with,” said Sprigg.

“This was a policy decision on the part of the Obama administration to reverse the longstanding policy that excluded transgender persons from the military. It is a policy decision of the Trump administration to reverse that. This is really not a constitutional issue, although the judge tries to frame it that way,” said Sprigg.

Sprigg believes the sympathetic media coverage of LGBT issues is influencing judges like Kollar-Kotelly.

“I think that the judge has internalized the way that the media covers this, which is that it’s a civil rights issue. It’s a matter of discrimination. It’s a matter of irrational animus towards people because of who they are. They’re simply failing to look at the real issues,” said Sprigg.

So what are the real issues? First of all, Sprigg says no one has standing to challenge the ban yet.

“The presidential memorandum (issued in August) basically said, ‘We are going to have the Pentagon look at this and make plans for how to undo the Obama policy and to report back on those by March 23, 2018.

“At the moment, the practice of the military remains as it was after July of 2016 under the Obama administration. In other words, people who came out as transgender are serving as openly transgender service members in the military, right now are continuing to do so even following the president’s announcement and will continue to do so until March of next year,” said Sprigg.

Sprigg says there is also no grounds to contest the ban on recruitment yet.

“No one has ever been recruited into the military as a transgender person. That policy was supposed to begin on July 1 of this year. Secretary of Defense James Mattis had already postponed that policy by six months before the president announced his decision on the overall policy,” said Sprigg.

“The July 2016 status quo is still in place right now. Therefore, these plaintiffs don’t really have an injury they can point to,” said Sprigg.

Once the timetables play out, the debate will continue. The argument in favor of allowing transgenders to serve is that anyone who is willing to serve and can meet the requirements ought to be given the chance to serve.

Sprigg says there are three compelling reasons to bring back the ban.

“[It’s] not because of any sort of discrimination or animus towards them because of who they are. It is for very specific medical reasons, both because of mental health and physical health considerations.

“People who identify as transgender do suffer from a mental disorder that is known as gender dysphoria. That has always been a disqualifying condition from a mental health perspective,” said Sprigg, who says there are physical standards in play as well.

“People who have had sex reassignment surgery are disqualified from a physical health perspective, as is anyone who has some sort of abnormality or mutilation of the genitalia for any reason,” said Sprigg.

He also points out that the military refuses to deploy anyone undergoing specialized medical treatment, and hormone treatments associated with gender reassignment would render service members unable to be deployed.

Sprigg says the judge doesn’t seem to care about why the previous policy existed.

“Although she quoted the previous policy about the physical and mental health issues when she actually analyzed whether this policy was justified, she didn’t address those issues at all. For the most part, the media does not address those issues either,” said Sprigg.

‘This Was Really Driven By Political Correctness’

July 26, 2017 by GregC

President Trump reinstated the ban on transgenders serving in the U.S. military on Wednesday, pleasing cultural conservatives and infuriating Democrats, LGBT activists, and quite a few Republicans.

Trump made the announcement Wednesday morning via three tweets.

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you,” stated Trump.

Family Research Council Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg says Trump made the right decision in reaction to President Obama lifting the ban in the final months of his administration.

“The Obama policy was not well-grounded. Therefore, returning to the longstanding policy that has always prevailed in our country was the right decision,” said Sprigg, who contends allowing transgender troops to serve openly would create a major distractions.

“Allowing those who identify as transgender to serve in the military would simply be a distraction from the core mission of our armed forces, which is to fight and win America’s wars. President Trump’s tweets indicated that he understands that,” said Sprigg, who sees the same motivation for Obama pushing Congress to overturn the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military or opening combat roles to women.

“All of these are situations where military effectiveness was not the primary objective and they all fall under the category of social engineering,” said Sprigg.

And why would transgenders serving be a distraction? First, Sprigg says Obama’s lifting of the ban was never about military readiness.

“This was really driven by political correctness. It would undermine good order, morale, and discipline in the military. It would raise all kinds of issues of privacy, just as we’ve discussed in some civilian contexts,” said Sprigg.

He also says a lot of taxpayer dollars would be needed to accommodate the medical needs of people transitioning from one gender identity to another.

“We would actually be asking taxpayers to pay for gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy for people who are already serving in the military. And, under the Obama policy, it would have eventually been for people who would choose to join the military as well,” said Sprigg.

Beyond that, Sprigg says the medical needs of such personnel would greatly limit their usefulness in overseas crises.

“Perhaps most importantly of all, these people undergoing these medical treatments have unique medical needs, which makes them non-deployable because they require specialized care that may not be available everywhere in the world where the military is deployed,” said Sprigg.

Sprigg says there is nothing new about medically excluding people from military service, so he sees the accusations of bigotry and discrimination in response to Trump’s announcement as being flawed.

“There are lots of patriotic Americans who are willing to serve their country but are not permitted to serve their country because of special medical conditions. I think those who identity as transgender as essentially no different from that category of individuals. It’s not a question of discrimination,” said Sprigg.

Trump is getting some vocal support for his decision.

“He’s doing what the vast majority of people in America want as well as military leaders,” said Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Missouri, who led the unsuccessful effort earlier this month to block taxpayer dollars from being spent on gender reassignment procedures and treatment. “So I’m very pleased that he listened and he acted decisively and will help restore our military’s readiness.”

Iraq War veteran J.R. Salzman offered a lengthy Twitter explanation of how combat duties broke a lot of people he served with.

“Now take someone confused about whether they are a man/woman,” wrote Salzman. “Take those psychological and emotional issues and put them in that environment. Take someone who is right off the bat not uniform or part of the same team. Give them special treatment because of their identity.

“Take that person, put them in that stressful war environment and watch what happens. It’s a f—ing ticking time bomb,” stated Salzman.

In addition to the fierce condemnation offered by Democrats and liberal activists to Trump’s reinstatement of the ban, man of the Republicans who offered a public response were also very critical. The Huffington Post compiled many of those statements.

““Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military — regardless of their gender identity,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.

“Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity,” said Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, an Iraq War veteran.

“I don’t think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them,” added Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Sens. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, also criticized the decision, as did Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, a former chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Sprigg isn’t overly surprised at the GOP backlash.

“I think they have internalized too many of the talking points to the radical LGBT activists and are not thinking clearly enough about this topic,” said Sprigg.

But while there may be a majority of lawmakers in opposition to Trump’s decision, Sprigg says Republicans would much rather forget about it than try to reverse it.

“I sense that this is the type of issue that a lot of Republican politicians would rather not have to deal with at all. They didn’t want to have to deal with Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s amendment to prevent the spending of taxpayer money for gender reassignment surgery or hormone replacement therapy.

“But I also think they’re not going to want to deal with any effort to overturn the president’s decision,” said Sprigg.

Standard Podcast [ 9:55 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

A Weekend to Honor

May 25, 2017 by GregC

Memorial Day is a time to remember the sacrifices of Americans who gave their lives in defense of our nation, and National Memorial Day Concert Host Joe Mantegna says those sacrifices allow us to enjoy all the freedoms we cherish this weekend and every day throughout the year.

“To me it’s our most important holiday,” said Mantegna. “Without Memorial Day, you don’t have the Fourth of July, you don’t have Christmas, you don’t have Labor Day. You have nothing.”

“I’m not saying everybody has to look at it that way. What I am saying is do understand how important this holiday is and give it its proper respect,” he added.

“Go ahead and barbecue. Go ahead and watch the Indianapolis 500. Do all the wonderful family things you’ll do this weekend. If watching he concert is part of it, great. But pause a moment and say to yourself how lucky we are that these men and women over the course of our history made these sacrifices,” said Mantegna, who had five family members serve in World War II.

Mantegna will share hosting duties with fellow actor Laurence Fishburne. The concert airs live on Sunday at 8 p.m. Eastern Time from the West Lawn of the Capitol. The program will feature honored veterans but also note what Memorial Day truly commemorates, those who gave what Abraham Lincoln called “the last full measure of devotion.”

That includes a tribute to America’s Gold Star Families, a designation to those families who lost a member in service to America.

“I remember the first concert I did 15 years ago. I remember seeing this whole section of women in white dresses out there. I said, ‘Who’s that?’ They explained those are the Gold Star mothers and explained to me what that organization was,” said Mantegna.

“Luckily, I had five uncles who all fought in World War II. They all came back so I was fortunate enough to not have to experience what it was like to be part of a Gold Star family. But I can certainly relate because these these five uncles of mine were so important in my life,” said Mantegna.

The concert will also honor Luis Avila, who suffered severe injuries from an improvised explosive device. Mantegna says Avila and his wife are an inspiration to him.

“Americans will be so moved and taken by their story. Talk about people who have taken what would be a major, major tragedy in anyone else’s life and trying to look at the positive side of it and just push forward and overcome it,” said Mantegna.

Legendary veterans will also be part of the program. 2017 marks 75 years since the famed Doolittle Raid that bombed Tokyo and other Japanese cities just four months after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. 101-year-old Richard E. Cole will be there. Cole served as Doolittle’s co-pilot in the lead plane and is the last surviving member of the 80 men whose heroism rallied a nation in desperate need of morale.

Fishburne, who is filling in for Gary Sinise, will share the story of the Tuskegee Airmen as part of the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the U.S. Air Force. At least two of the surviving airmen will be there, including Lt. Col. Robert J. Friend. Mantegna says the 97-year-old friend still goes to work every day.

Most of all, Mantegna says he hopes the concert will help Americans take that pause and appreciate every single life laid down for the United States.

“Without those sacrifices, who’s to say what our country would be today. ‘Freedom isn’t free,’ is an often-used phrase, but it’s so true and the military are those who have to cash the checks,” said Mantegna.

Standard Podcast [ 8:58 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Three Martini Lunch 2/23/17

February 23, 2017 by GregC

Greg Corombos of Radio America and David French of National Review applaud the Trump administration for rescinding Pres. Obama’s demand that all public schools embrace transgender accommodation and leaving the issue to states or local school districts. They also slam the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for ruling that any gun can be banned if it’s “useful for military service.” And David vents about the one of the worst trades in NBA history.

‘Women Are the Ones Who Lose’

February 14, 2017 by GregC

The effort to blur and even erase gender distinctions is a decades-long effort by liberal activists to achieve equality but the effort is only serving to endanger the very women the movement supposedly champions.

That’s the premise of “Sex Scandal: The Drive to Abolish Male and Female” by journalist and Catholic Association Senior Fellow Ashley McGuire.

She says the movement has far larger goals than winning restroom and locker room accommodation for people who believe they are a different sex than their anatomy would indicate.

“The endgame is being pushed by an elite segment of society that thinks that equality only will come when we all seem truly identical or when we ‘liberate’ ourselves from this idea of sex and gender,” said McGuire. “Women are the ones who lose in a world where it’s scandalous to even use the word ‘woman’ as a category.”

While many social conservatives see the transgender movement bursting onto the scene in just the past few years, McGuire says the larger effort has been unfolding for decades.

“Radical left-wing feminists pushed this idea that we’re very gendered, that we’ve been socialized to be a certain way, that these are superficial things and that sex is something very random and we just need to get ourselves out of these male and female boxes for women to be equal like men. We’re just starting to see some of the most extreme manifestations of it now, a few decades later,” said McGuire.

In her book, McGuire highlights stories such as a schoolteacher removing Legos from her classroom because boys were far more likely to play with them than girls and high schools removing Homecoming king and queen from the lexicon in favor of ‘royalty.’

Target stores have stopped labeling toys for boys and girls and there is even a push to stop dividing boys and girls clothes into different sections of the stores.

“What we’re seeing now is society actually actively encouraging confusion. That’s the kind of things parents have to resist, whether they’re getting it in their consumer choices or whether it’s actually being taught in their schools,” said McGuire. “This idea that toys and clothes have to be gender neutral or else you’re doing some sort of harm to your children is completely false,” said McGuire.

But it’s not just kids who deal with the consequences of the effort to eradicate gender and sex. McGuire says adult women are paying the price, including those serving in the military. She says women in the service can now be forced to the front lines of combat if they meet the physical requirements.

In 2016, the issue took on a greater dimension, when Congress very nearly required all women to register with Selective Service, which could one day make them eligible for non-voluntary service, possibly even in combat.

“It’s ironic to me that we’re suddenly talking about taking away choice for women, a choice as to whether they’re going to be put into some of the most dangerous situations possible,” said McGuire.

“The Marines just had their boot camp go co-ed and now they’re going to be putting men and women into the same sleeping quarters. That raises all sorts of risk for sexual assault, lawsuits, rape and things like that,” said McGuire.

College campuses also continue to pursue policies that are marketed as progressive but that McGuire believes puts women at great risk, especially in residential housing.

“Something like 80 percent of rapes (on campus) happen in college dorms. A lot smaller percentage than you think happen in fraternities and sororities or off-campus housing. That shouldn’t surprise us because most of these dorms are co-ed,” said McGuire.

“The idea being that men and women are no different. We can put them in the same building where they’re going to sleep and shower. Often they’re showering and bathing in the same bathroom. Some (colleges) are already implementing co-ed dorm rooms but at the same time wondering why women are being raped left and right,” aid McGuire.

So what do feminists have to say in response to this effort endangering women? McGuire says the left is very good at silencing opposing views.

“They’re trying to stifle any sort of dissent on the issue. I think there are very few people speaking out against it,” said McGuire.

She also says it took awhile for many people to see how the movement could impact them and their children.

“This all seemed like something that didn’t affect people in a very personal way. Increasingly, I think people are starting to see, whether it’s someone like me – a mother to a couple of young children – faced with the prospect that my kids might be taught in their school curriculum as young as kindergarten about gender being a malleable construct,” said McGuire.

McGuire says there are some groups on the left that believe ending gender and sex distinction is harmful to women so the fight against the cultural tide will lead to “strange bedfellows.”

She also says studies show that equality for women is being achieved without blowing up our cultural foundation. Citing research showing that CEO’s with daughters are likely to offer better salaries and opportunities to women, McGuire says things are moving in the right direction and a radical redefinition of humanity is not needed.

“That’s the direction we should be going. We should be exploring what our differences are, how our differences contribute in mutually beneficial ways, and trying to establish an equality based on that, not on this fake and unrealistic idea that if we make everything identical that’s when we’ll have achieved equality,” said McGuire.

Standard Podcast [ 14:02 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download