Male, Female, Or 'Nonbinary': California Set To Be First State To Add "Gender X" Designation To Licenses

Up until now, state issued identification cards around the country have limited gender designations to "male" and "female" because, well, biological science has historically taught us that those were the only two options.  But that hateful and narrowed-minded micro-aggression perpetrated by our genetic code will no longer be tolerated in the state of California, whether it"s a scientifically proven fact or not. 

As the San Francisco Chronicle points out today, California"s legislature is currently considering SB 179 that will add a new "nonbinary" gender designation to the state"s identification cards.

When Californians are designated by gender on a driver’s license, a birth certificate or any state identification, there are only two possible boxes to check: either “M” or “F.” But they may soon have a third option.

A bill advancing in the Legislature would allow Californians to opt for a “nonbinary” gender marker on all forms of state identification. It’s not yet clear which alphabetical abbreviation will be used, though “X” appears to be a leading candidate.

That would make California the first state in the nation to fully depart from the rigid either/or categorization of gender, embracing a more fluid understanding of the term — at least on paper.

"For someone who has an ID that states a gender that doesn’t match their gender presentation, things can get difficult — everything from a delay in completing what should be a mundane task to outright harassment,” Atkins said on the Senate floor in May.

“It’s liberating to be able to say, ‘Yes, this is who I am,’ and, ‘Yes, my state documentation matches that,’” Shull said.

California State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Fran)

Not surprisingly, SB 179 has been introduced by the same California State Senator, Scott Wiener (D-San Fran), who last week introduced us to legislation that would seek to imprison healthcare workers that "willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns."

No, we"re not making this up.  In fact, here is brief summary of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights (or SB-219 if you"re into the whole brevity thing):

This bill would enact the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights. Among other things, the bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-term care facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, including, among others, willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns, or denying admission to a long-term care facility, transferring or refusing to transfer a resident within a facility or to another facility, or discharging or evicting a resident from a facility.

Meanwhile, here are couple of other actions that would be considered a crime for healthcare workers in California under SB-219:

(2) Deny a request by residents to share a room.

(3) Where rooms are assigned by gender, assigning, reassigning, or refusing to assign a room to a transgender resident other than in accordance with the transgender resident’s gender identity, unless at the transgender resident’s request.

(4) Prohibit a resident from using, or harass a resident who seeks to use or does use, a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity, regardless of whether the resident is making a gender transition or appears to be gender-nonconforming. Harassment includes, but is not limited to, requiring a resident to show identity documents in order to gain entrance to a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity.

(5) Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.

(6) Deny a resident the right to wear or be dressed in clothing, accessories, or cosmetics that are permitted for any other resident.

(7) Restrict a resident’s right to associate with other residents or with visitors, including the right to consensual sexual relations, unless the restriction is uniformly applied to all residents in a nondiscriminatory manner. This section does not preclude a facility from banning or restricting sexual relations, as long as the ban or restriction is applied uniformly and in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Of course, none of this is considered science denial...but, question someone"s climate change opinion and you might as well walk around with a "Science Denier" sign on your back for the rest of you life.

SB 179 can be reviewed in its entirety here:

Fired Coder Speaks Out On Google's "Potentially Illegal Practices", "Recorded Meetings" And "Science Denial"

For those who have managed to avoid this storyline, James Damore, now a former Google employee, caused outrage when he circulated a manifesto on Friday, complaining about Google’s “ideological echo chamber,” alleging women have lower tolerance for stress and that conservatives are more conscientious. By Monday, the chess master, who studied at Harvard, Princeton and MIT and worked at Google"s Mountain View HQ, was fired after the search giant’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, said portions of Damore’s 10-page memo “violate our code of conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes” despite saying in the same memo that Google employees shouldn"t be afraid of speaking their minds.

Now, for the first time, the former Googler sat down for a YouTube interview with University of Toronto professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson, to discuss the circumstances leading up to the release of his controversial memo and the fallout that has resulted since. 

In this first exchange, Damore explains that he decided to write his now-infamous memo after attending a "secretive" Google "diversity summit" in which he says presenters talked about "potentially illegal practices" intended to "try to increase diversity...basically treating people differently based on what their race or gender are."

Peterson:  "Why did you do this?"

Damore:  "About a month and a half ago, I went to one of our diversity summits, all of it unrecorded and super-secret and they told me a lot of things that I thought just were not right."

Peterson:  "Ok, what do you mean "unrecorded and super-secret?""

Damore:  "Most meetings at Google are recorded.  Anyone at Google can watch it.  We"re trying to be really open about everything...except for this.  They don"t want any paper trail for any of these things." 

"They were telling us about a lot of these potentially illegal practices that they"ve been doing to try to increase diversity.  Basically treating people differently based on what their race or gender are." 

Peterson:  "Ok, why?"

Damore:  "Because I think it"s illegal.  As some of the internal polls showed, there were a large percentage of people who agreed with me on the document.  So, if everyone got to see this stuff, then they would really bring up some criticism." 

Damore also talks about how he originally published his memo over a month ago but upper-management largely ignored it until it started to garner media attention.  Then, once it went viral, upper management organized a coordinated attack and misrepresented facts in order to silence him.

Damore: "I actually published this document about a month ago; it"s only after it had gone viral and leaked to the news, that Google started caring." 

"There was a lot of upper management that started to call it out and started saying how harmful it is.  This sort of viewpoint is not allowed at Google."

Peterson:  "Yeah, what sort of viewpoint exactly?  The idea that there are differences between men and women that might actually play a role in the corporate world?  That"s an opinion that"s not acceptable?"

Damore:  "Yeah, it seems so.  And there"s a lot of misrepresentation by upper-management just to silence me, I think." 

On why he was fired:

Peterson:  "What was there rationale for firing you exactly?  What was the excuse that was given?"

Damore:  "So, the official excuse was that I was perpetuating gender stereotypes." 

And finally, an interesting tidbit in which Damore once again points out that Google"s progressives are all too eager to put on their science hats when discussing climate change but are less eager to entertain scientific facts when they"re deemed "inconvenient."

Damore:  "I"m not sure how they can expect to silence so many engineers and intelligent people and just deny science like this"

Cafe Brags That They Discriminate Against Men

Via The Daily Bell

As a business, if you want to promote equality, the first thing you need to do is make sure you treat your customers unequally based on their gender.

I love when people empower themselves by becoming business owners. Running a business is certainly not easy, but it still frees you from certain constraints. For instance, pay is not decided arbitrarily by a boss, it is based on the services you provide.

Ironically, one business owner in Australia is using her success to promote inequality.

The cafe in Australia touts their discriminatory practices. An article about the cafe on The Mirror reads: Cafe charges men more than women – for a very powerful reason.

Yes, for a powerful reason. Their discrimination is powerful because statistically, women earn 18% less than men in Australia. That is why it is okay to discriminate in hiring as well; the cafe called Handsome Her only hires women. And they also give preferential seating to women. Men must get to the back of the bus–or cafe, whatever.

The 18% “man tax” is technically optional during the one week per month the tax applies, with the proceeds going towards women’s causes. I wonder how many women volunteer to pay the tax, seeing as it is for a cause they presumably agree with.

Also ironic: the fact that it is all women working at the cafe. About 81% of workers in the category, “Hosts and hostesses, restaurant, lounge, and coffee shop,” are women. This gives us a glimpse into the true issue of the pay gap. Sometimes is not actually a pay gap, it is a work choice gap.

But hey, if this cafe owner wants to discriminate against men, I fully support her right to do so. She will probably face legal challenges, and that is too bad in my opinion. I don’t think the government should interfere with businesses. No one is forced to patronize the coffee shop.

Likewise, I wish all proponents of fixing the wage gap would take up the issue in the private sector. But when you start advocating legal repercussions, you are limiting the freedom of others.

The media promotes certain types of discrimination. Discrimination is only okay when it corrects a historical wrong.

One headline from a 2015 Huffington Post article reads: Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People.

“Our” ancestors kept slaves, so affirmative action, all black schools, and white free zones are all now acceptable. Nevermind that my ancestors were in Italy and Scotland in 1865. In fact, likely the majority of white Americans descend from post Civil War immigrants. Not that it should matter anyway; since when are we responsible for the sins of our relatives?

Private organizations should absolutely be allowed to discriminate. I wouldn’t want to force a black tailor to sew the white robes for a KKK outfit. Nor do I wish to force a baker or a florist to provide services for a gay wedding if they don’t want to.

I still don’t understand why a gay couple would want to give their business to a florist or a baker who is anti-gay. Ironically the same people understand that boycotting Chick-Fil-A is the proper response if you don’t like the organizations to which they donate.

I want to know who doesn’t want my money so that I don’t fund the promotion of something with which I disagree. I am glad the cafe is vocal against their anti-man stance. Otherwise, I might accidentally spend my money there.

I want to know about “white free zones.” I will feel much safer staying far away from them.

Of course, we need to stay vigilant about the legal action taken against honest business owners. But the true solution is obviously only supporting businesses which match up with your values.

Another thought; is humor a good way to combat these media driven cultural memes? I think the tv show Portlandia does a pretty good job of that. Check out the video below, and let me know what you think.

57% Of Americans Think Government "Works Better" When Women Get Involved

How are women viewed in different countries across the world? Views fluctuate massively depending on where you live with Russians particularly negative about women"s responsibilities in the government or companies...

You will find more statistics at Statista

The data used in the infographic was compiled by Ipsos MORI.

Only 34 percent of people in Russia say things would work better if women held positions with responsibilities in government or companies while 69 percent say the role of a woman in society is to be a good mother and wide.

In India, views are far more mixed where a woman"s role is in society is seen as a part of government and business as well as a good mother and wife.

In the United States, 57 percent of people think things would improve with more women in government and companies while 41 percent say the role of women is to be good mothers and wives.

'A Day Without A Woman' Is The Ultimate In Virtue Signaling Bullshit, And Here's Why

Via JrDeputyAccountant.com,

If you are a woman with the luxury of taking yesterday off, congrats. You aren"t the kind of woman who needs to take a day off to make a point about how women are supposedly underpaid (data is still and will always be out on that one), you are likely protected enough in your position to be able to take a day off in the first place and congratulations, it means you live in the first world where a woman can choose to take a day off for whatever reason. Way to stick it to the man, ladies. I hope you had an awesome day at home, you deserve it.

The triumphant announcement of this day without women on the "official" Women"s March page (because someone bought that dot com, ya know) reads:

In the same spirit of love and liberation that inspired the Women"s March, we join together in making March 8th A Day Without a Woman, recognizing the enormous value that women of all backgrounds add to our socio-economic system--while receiving lower wages and experiencing greater inequities, vulnerability to discrimination, sexual harassment, and job insecurity. We recognize that trans and gender nonconforming people face heightened levels of discrimination, social oppression and political targeting. We believe in gender justice.

Anyone, anywhere, can join by making March 8th A Day Without a Woman, in one or all of the following ways:

• Women take the day off, from paid and unpaid labor


• Avoid shopping for one day (with exceptions for small, women- and minority-owned businesses).


• Wear RED in solidarity with A Day Without A Woman

So even on what is supposed to be our day, we"re being told what to do. Take off work. Don"t shop. Wear RED. BTW, the red thing has already been overdone for AIDS awareness, or are you guys not old enough to remember those AIDS iPods U2 was shilling many many years back?

I own a media company, cobbling together an existence these days but an existence no less, and one that I take great pride in. The fact that I have the opportunity to cobble this existence together is completely first world, I wouldn"t have this option if, say, I were a woman in Sudan. When stories I need to cover come in I can"t be like yeah sorry, it"s wear red day and I"m doing cliche lady stuff at home in the tub sipping wine.

Meanwhile there"s a little girl in Sudan getting her parts hacked up because female genital mutilation is still in a thing around the world and I"m over here in the United States thinking wearing a red shirt makes a difference? Please give me twenty breaks with that shit.

How funny was it they said avoid shopping, like that"s what all we women do right lol. RESIST THE URGE. Don"t shop! That"ll show them! And then turn around the next day and buy a bunch of crap you don"t need on Amazon, that"ll show them. I did go get my hair cut at my women-owned salon but that is beside the God damned point.

If you took yesterday off, good for you. But look the fuck around you. Were you sold into child marriage at 12? Do you still have your natal genitals? Do you have to walk hours a day just for water? No? Then you"re doing pretty good as far as women across the world are concerned. Do we first world women have problems of our own? Of course. But please stop getting the vapors at every opportunity to play up our oppression, it"s getting exhausting.

The fact that y"all can go out there in vagina costumes and not get your asses beat is proof of how just good we have it here in the good ole first world. Remember that when you"re putting on a red shirt the next time.