Women’s March Underway in D.C.: ‘Trump Is an Unstable Penis’

The anti-Trump Women’s March is underway in D.C. and in cities across the nation Saturday, as self-described feminists gather to protest both President Trump and his Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

“We’re holding socially distant actions across the country to send an unmistakable message about the fierce opposition to Trump and his agenda, including his attempt to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat,” the Women’s March said in its official call to action.

A collection of anti-Trump signs have been spotted across the nation’s capital, including a lewd banner reading, “Trump is an unstable penis”:

Signs reading, “Dump Trump and his gang of Putin,” “Free Melania,” “My favorite season is the FALL of the patriarchy,” and “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries” were also spotted in the crowds:

Similar scenes could be seen in cities across the nation:

Notably, the official website of the Women’s March also states that it supports the Black Lives Matter movement’s call to defund the police, asserting that it is a “feminist issue” because “black, poor, immigrant and undocumented women are disproportionately targeted, abused and murdered by police.”


The Left Hates Amy Coney Barrett Because She Disproves All Their Lies About Women

Newest Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is almost the polar opposite of the “Sex and the City” chimera of female empowerment: a serious Christian who eschews hookup culture and has seven kids. Half of her resume consists of behavior the leftists who control feminism constantly attack as anti-woman: big-time motherhood and big-time religion.

Fertile women who are serious about prayer get derided as brainless sex slaves, with the “Handmaid’s Tale” imagery that gets deployed against any skepticism of abortion. Of course, this is a steaming pile of horse hockey, and Barrett proves it. She is obviously not a browbeaten, barefoot and pregnant caricature of a conservative woman. Those kind of women are not professors at Notre Dame Law School, or Supreme Court clerks, or federal court judges.

Barrett has done exactly what the left’s anti-woman feminist narrative says is impossible — obtaining a high-octane education while maintaining religious devotion, marrying in her 20s and choosing both a big family and a big career. To really rub salt in that eyeball, her big career has consisted of kicking butt and taking names in a field the left believes is their own and is central to power.

Barrett is a walking rebuke not only to the narrative but to the powers that be. And she looks great while she does it. Her very existence repudiates the left’s binary thinking about womanhood, that women have to deny what makes women different from men to achieve professionally. And that’s why they hate her.

Here is a rundown of just some of the left’s lies about women that Barrett’s achievements undermine.

Women Need Abortion to Succeed

Two of Barrett’s seven children are adopted. Both adopting children and having more than two are repudiations of the left’s open and implicit claim that babies hold women back, that pregnancy is an obstacle rather than a miracle, and that children are so problematic that you should have maybe just one or two of these money-sucking terrors at the very most, if at all.

Yet Barrett didn’t need abortion to “save” her from “unwanted” pregnancies. She didn’t need it as a backstop if the contraception failed. At least two of her children were not born into ideal circumstances, as evidenced by their need for adoption. But they were adopted, not aborted.

Instead of treating children as an obstacle to pursuing her dreams, Barrett actively welcomed them to join her life journey. She not only had five herself, she chose to mother more!

Like all children, all of hers are beautiful. And all of them are wanted by someone.

Children Make You Unhappy

Fear is a driving factor in support for abortion. Children are disruptive. They ruin your life. A baby is a problem. This sort of anti-human animus drives support for abortion. People who think every baby is a blessing, a miracle, and a treasure do not support abortion. People who think some babies’ lives won’t be worth living, that babies are a burden — those are the ones who support abortion. Just listen to any pro-abortion rhetoric. It all views children as negative, something to beware of.

Not Barrett. “Our children are my greatest joy, even though they deprive me of any reasonable amount of sleep,” Barrett said when accepting the high court nomination. Most mothers would say the same.

It seems evident that Barrett would be completely happy without the crowning professional achievement that a woman on the left would be willing to kill her own children to obtain. That is psychological torture for the left’s social media wailers and gnashers of teeth — to be the kind of low person who is willing to sacrifice your soul to gain the world, then seeing the world you’d kill to obtain handed on a platter to a woman whose soul and integrity she prizes above it. Her treasure isn’t on this earth, so it can’t be taken away.

Women Must Repress Their Fertility to Succeed

As a Sept. 27 Politico article points out, Barrett’s would-be predecessor on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “viewed abortion rights as central to sexual equality.” That’s because bearing children requires significantly more physical labor for women than for men, especially in the early years.

The left’s solution to this has been to stamp out women’s physical uniqueness, to chemically or surgically neuter our capacity to cultivate human life. Their way to make men and women “equal” is to eliminate female-ness. It’s the left’s Procrustean bed fetish.

Abortion is just one of many weapons to attack female fertility, to hack it into a more male presentation. It all implies that what makes women women is bad. Yahoo! ran an article saying Barrett “hates your uterus” because she believes “life begins at conception.” Like the babies they grow, however, it’s to the left that uteruses are truly problematic, not the right. They demand we spray our uteruses with womb-Raid, even if that means suffering numerous nasty side-effects in silence.

Well, Barrett didn’t need to do that to herself. Her obvious fecundity has not prevented her world-class career, which is better than the careers of most men and women in the world. She very obviously doesn’t “hate uteruses,” she loves them. Hers has gotten very productive use.

Religious People and Conservatives Are Anti-Sex

Because conservatives and religious people support the careful use of sexuality as compared to wanton promiscuity, we are smeared as hating sex. It’s like being told you “hate kitchen tools” if you advocate for prudent knife use.

Regardless, a womb only gets fruitful one way. As evidenced by our higher fertility rates, it seems pretty clear that, contrary to the leftist narrative, conservatives rock that thing people do that makes babies. The science even confirms it.

Women Don’t Need Men

Marriage is the epitome of the cooperation of the sexes, yet the left treats it as unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. The Black Lives Matter organization, for example, which has been supported by millions in donations and thousands of endorsements from CEOs and Democrat politicians, in its policy platform openly attacked “heteronormative” “nuclear families.”

Gloria Steinem, the apostle of feminism, popularized the phrase “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Leftism and feminism pit the sexes against each other, while conservatism and Christianity recognize that the sexes are interdependent. This recognition brings humankind joy instead of hatred.

Fathers are crucial to the happiness and well-being of every child, a need that only intensifies with the addition of each child. Barrett’s husband Jesse is a full partner in their marriage with his own significant career. Barrett recognized her husband’s major contributions to their family and her happiness in her nomination acceptance speech Saturday night.

I couldn’t manage this very full life without the unwavering support of my husband Jesse. At the start of our marriage, I imagined that we would run our household as partners. As it has turned out, Jesse does far more than his share of the work. To my chagrin, I learned at dinner recently that my children consider him to be the better cook. For 21 years, Jesse has asked me every single morning what he can do for me that day. And though I almost always say ‘Nothing,’ he still finds ways to take things off my plate. And that’s not because he has a lot of free time—he has a busy law practice. It’s because he has a superb and generous husband, and I am very fortunate.

Given her description, I think it’s accurate to guess Barrett and her husband’s interdependence is a source of strength and joy to them both, as well as to their children and community. They have undoubtedly achieved much more together than they could have separately, as many highly successful women will also tell you of their marriages. Our husbands are our sometimes-secret weapon.

Christianity Oppresses Women

The left constantly charges Christianity with being anti-woman. Women are a majority of adherents to the faith, which implies either the left doesn’t know what it’s talking about or millions of women are brainwashed. The latter would suggest women as a group are passive and ignorant, which is also at odds with the left’s claims that women are independent, competitive “bosses.”

While I can’t square that circle, it is clear that Barrett’s life also repudiates this smear. She is by all accounts a devoted Christian who has pursued her faith relentlessly. It has done no damage to her brain, family, or career. That’s only surprising to people who are prejudiced against Christianity.

Conservatives Hate Women

A corollary to the “Christians hate women” charge is that the right hates women because we don’t support mutilating their bodies with abortion and abortifacient contraception. Barrett contradicts that smear by having spent her life amid highly conservative religious, legal, and professional environments yet being constantly awarded and promoted, now to the highest court in the land in a career achievement everyone else can only dream of, thanks to a man and political team the left insists is “misogynistic.”

Notice, however, that during her confirmation hearings, it will not be the “pro-woman” left championing this distinguished, highly accomplished woman. It will be the right.

Women Should Prioritize Career Over Family

The feminist narrative pushes women to value things over people. It conveys to women that they should value paid work over the interpersonal investment that characterizes motherhood, sisterhood, and volunteering. This is why women are pressured to neuter themselves: To pursue a career without any “distractions.”

Yet Barrett has managed to obtain that most elusive of girl-boss goals: Having it all. Both the family and the job. It is definitely very difficult and thus highly unlikely. But this unusual woman has done it. Here are some highlights of Barrett’s law career, as mentioned by President Trump in his nomination speech:

Amy then received one of the highest honors a young lawyer could have, serving as a clerk on the Supreme Court for Justice Antonin Scalia. A highly — a very highly respected law professor at Notre Dame wrote to Justice Scalia with a one-sentence recommendation: ‘Amy Coney is the best student I ever had.’ That’s pretty good. Justice Scalia hired her shortly thereafter.

Women Are Oppressed

At the core of the left’s insane views of what it means to be a woman is the oppression narrative. No matter what women achieve, no matter how happy we are, their political project rests upon resentment, so resentment must be cultivated. That’s why even as women surpass men on every measure, the left has pushed even harder to get us to believe that things are actually getting worse for women.

That’s the real problem with Amy Coney Barrett. She’s a happy woman. She has “it” all today, but even if she lost “it,” because of her faith she’d still be happy. And a happy woman is the left’s worst enemy.


Teen Vogue’s Latest Crap Take: Rockstar Jurist Amy Coney Barrett, Mother Of Four Girls, Hates Women

“Teen Vogue,” the teen version of the fashion magazine “Vogue,” ran a fear-mongering story Saturday titled, “Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee May Be a Woman, But She Won’t Help Women.” Since Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died, the left has been in utter hysteria over Trump’s pro-life Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. The mission to attack and undermine Barrett, the mother of seven, is coming from all directions, even teen gossip magazines. 

Teen Vogue’s op-ed declared that Trump’s nomination of Barrett to replace Ginsberg was a “malicious nod to RBG’s legacy.” The article went on to argue that even though Barrett is a woman, she isn’t the right woman. “We can’t just settle for any woman… Having a woman on the Supreme Court isn’t a victory for feminism if her policies are inherently anti-feminist.” 

The op-ed even stated that during the Trump presidency “we’ve learned that women — specifically white women — are more inclined to capitulate to men in power than to look out for each other.” Yes, the article linked to a different op-ed that argued white women, like legal giant Barrett, are part of a long legacy of women driving white supremacy. 

The Teen Vogue article concludes with classic left-wing scare tactics, calling Barrett’s appointment a “nightmare scenario,” and predicting that if “Trump manages to get his way, the entire country, particularly anyone who is not a white, straight male, will feel the effects.”  

The left has been throwing a tantrum over Barrett’s potential nomination from the moment RBG died, running over-the-top stories like “This Is Amy Coney Barrett, The Potential RBG Replacement Who Hates Your Uterus.” The left has not been able to resist attacking Barrett for being a devout Catholic. They have done it before and Catholics are preparing for more during the upcoming Senate hearings. 

So why does it matter that Teen Vogue, a frivolous magazine for tweens and teens, has jumped on the anti-Amy Coney Barrett bandwagon? The answer is, like so many other parts of popular culture, Teen Vogue has become a vehicle of the radical left cultural indoctrination machine. Fashion and celebrity gossip are secondary to their political goals. They run stories like, “4 Key Ways to Build Strong Social Justice Movements,” and use celebrities and trends to radicalize American youth, with stories like “Lizzo and Senator Kamala Harris Talked About the Importance of Voting.”

Other recent headlines from the gossip magazine include “Climate Change Deniers Are Embracing QAnon to Gain Followers,” “New York’s Summer of Beautiful Anarchy,” and “Ronald Reagan Sucked, Actually.” 

In August, Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw and Sen. Ted Cruz slammed Teen Vogue for publishing an op-ed calling for the abolishment of private property rights and the police. Oh yeah, Teen Vogue has also become a strong advocate for socialism.

A few more published articles include, “How I can critique capitalism — even on an iPhone”, “Who is Karl Marx — meet the anti-capitalist scholar” and “Four big takeaways from Bernie’s speech on democratic socialism.” So, if you are wondering why your children suddenly hold radical left-wing beliefs you never instilled in them, thank the radical left, which has been slowly taking over American pop culture for decades as parents allowed it to decide what their children believe. 

Teen Vogue’s assault on Barrett isn’t surprising, but it should be troubling. Barrett should be an inspiration to Teen Vogue’s young female readers. She graduated first in her class in law school and was universally hailed as the best Supreme Court Clerk in her cohort. She is fiercely devoted to her family and her 7 children, all under the age of 20.

She is an adoptive mother and a mother of a child with special needs. She has been able to balance her busy and admirable home life with a successful career as a caring professor and a brilliant jurist. With all but two Republican senators strongly united to see her appointment through, she is well poised to become America’s next Supreme Court justice. 

In many ways, Barrett represents a new wave of feminism, one that views a successful marriage as a means to a successful home and work life. Barrett’s brand of feminism emphasizes balance and a belief that women can actually have it all! Instead of tearing her down, Teen Vogue should be celebrating Barrett as an ideal example of female empowerment.

Teen Vogue explained it themselves: Barrett is a woman, but not the right woman. In other words, the writers and editors of Teen Vogue are teaching their young readers that women, regardless of their competence and intelligence, are not worthy of success and recognition if they do not check the right ideological boxes.

Sadly, Teen Vogue uses their cultural influence to push this dangerous agenda on young girls at the expense of a truly admirable and accomplished woman and her beautiful family.


Director Of Feminist Film ‘Dollhouse’: ‘I Actually Didn’t Feel As Exploited Being A Stripper As I Do As A Screenwriter’

Nicole Brending wore many hats on the set of “Dollhouse: The Eradication of Female Subjectivity from American Pop Culture,” a tale of the rise and fall of fictional child pop star Junie Spoons. Brending wrote, directed, edited, and produced the film, voiced many of the characters, and designed the dolls that are used in place of actors.

Brending and I spoke about her film, its feminist messages, the mid-2000s pop culture satirized, and creating a film with dolls in place of actors.

Junie goes through not just the typical rise and fall of a child star, but through some remarkably heightened issues. What inspired you to take her story to such highs and lows?

There’s a number of things. One of the things that the film is satirizing is how the media is always topping itself. After each episode that Junie goes through, it had to get worse, or crazier, or just more extreme. That was the part of the concept of the film, but also the challenge of the film was to see, like, how much more insane can we get? How can we take it to a place that is inevitable but that’s also unexpected?

The ending of the film was a phenomenal twist. It was simultaneously shocking and yet felt like the only logical conclusion to the story. How did you decide to end her story in such a way?

That way this movie is looking at how we destroy women and dismantle them and take from them and so, like, that’s a part of it. So it was kind of like the only thing to do eventually is to discard her when she’s no longer useful, but I don’t want to give away the ending.

There are obvious practical reasons for animating this story — the sexual escapades of a 12-year-old are not something that can or should be filmed with actual actors. The stylistic choice to use the creatively designed and eerie dolls was a really interesting workaround. What made you choose the specific doll-based animation for this film? Did you ever consider other animated forms?

I worked dolls and puppets before, and one of the things that I really love about them is, more than traditional animation, people really seem to connect with them. There’s kind of a living quality to them that a regular animation wouldn’t have. I had this one film some years back called “Operated by Invisible Hands” that was this love story between these two dolls. At first, people are laughing, and they think it’s funny.

Then there’s a point at which they get quiet, and you realize it’s not because they’re not engaged; it’s because they’re so engaged with the love story. I think there’s something there’s that aspect of them that I really wanted to bring to the project. It’s important that people connect to the story.

I also think, like you said, for the purposes of satire, there’s a lot of stuff you can’t do with real people or it would be unpalatable. You could, but it would be unpalatable, like the sex tape, like literally all of the film. In order to really get across the truth of I’ve what I’m trying to explore in terms of misogyny in our perspective on women, I wanted to do it in a satirical way, and I wanted to do it in a way that people could watch and get the meaning from and really, really take some truth from it, but not feel like they were being preached to, and not feel like they were being alienated.

With static dolls, there is an added benefit of style and it contributes to the doll motif throughout the film. However, you do lose facial expressions and body language. Did you ever fear the effect of losing this form of storytelling? As a director, how did you work around that? And how did it factor into your design of the dolls?

One of the things that I enjoy doing with puppets is finding an expression that really captures the essence of that character. That came through the story, and then through the directing of them, the way that we shoot. I’ll get certain angles and certain kinds of staging. It actually really changes your perception of their expression.

And then of course there’s the voice acting, but I’ve had actors say to me, after seeing some of my puppet movies, “Yeah, it really means you don’t have to do much as an actor.” There are tricks to dealing with that, and I kind of prefer it and having the mouths move. It cheapens the effects of them being toys.

One of the other reasons I think viewers like the dolls is that they seem like toys. There’s this idea that you could maybe be doing this at home. To have things that are professionally made, or that were made for them to be on film, cheapens the effects.

For the latter third of the film, the film is hijacked by a new character from seemingly out of nowhere, and that is Trans Junie. What was the inspiration behind that character, and what were you trying to get across to audiences?

What we’re trying to get across to audiences in that part is the eradication of female subjectivity from American popular culture. One thing that I thought about just in terms of the structure of the project was that, eventually, Junie would need to be eliminated from her own story.

I thought about different ways to do it. We always hear about these rooms, you know, of white men making decisions about women’s bodies, but I think there’s another way that women are being silenced right now. And I think that’s through gender politics, actually, which is kind of surprising. Their perspectives are being eliminated. I want to look at the logic behind trans ideology, and then see how that logic was being used to silence women.

I think there’s also just an aspect of, like, looking at how we don’t really even respect women’s talents. It doesn’t matter that Junie’s talented. She just is something that we feed off of, and then we get rid of her. It’s just the image of her that Trans Junie takes on. There’s a lot going on in that.

I would say, generally speaking, when we’re talking about the controversial aspects of the film, it’s definitely this part of it. What I’m trying to really demonstrate, because it’s really happening, is how trans ideology is being used to silence women, and it’s unacceptable. I think as women, we are entitled to define what it means to be women.

The film has a clear message against the commoditization and sexualization of young women in the music industry. How do you want audiences to relate the themes of the film into their own lives?

I don’t see this movie as actually being about a pop star. I think women [have] everyday experiences like this, where they are being silenced or they are being ignored. To me, Junie’s story is very much about trying to look at various ways that we deny women their own subjective perspective. I’ve had many women come up to me after a screening and say, “This is what my life is I feel like. I relate to this, like, entirely.”

I definitely think it has broader applications than just the pop world. I’ve also been really pleased with how a lot of men have said, “You know, I really love this movie.” I feel like it’s a way that men can be a part of the conversation about the subject because it’s not vilifying them; it’s looking at how everybody’s culpable.

I think that’s a really important thing to think about, is that we’re all culpable in misogyny and the silencing of women. It’s a lens, so misogyny is a way that we perceive people. It’s not just a group of people acting upon another. I want people to be thinking about that in their daily lives. Even my manager is said, “It’s actually changed the way that I interact with my wife.” That’s really cool. I think that’s like the best thing you can hope for. It starts conversations.

When I was at Slamdance, a filmmaker came up to me in the filmmaker lounge, and he said, “So what movie did you do?” I said, “I did that one with the puppets.” He responded, “You know, I’ve been hearing conversations about that movie, just like overhearing conversations that I couldn’t stop listening to, because people are talking about that subject matter in a way that I’ve never heard people talk about it.” It’s really exciting. I mean, that’s the best you can hope for. I think it does inspire conversations. I also hope people find it funny, and they can have a laugh at the same time.

Real-life pop culture, especially mid-2000s, clearly inspired lots of the aesthetics and events of the film. What was the intention behind that choice? Was it contemporary pop culture or was it more to sort of couch it in a sense of reality, or both?

It’s a little of both. I was thinking of the Britney Spears video “…Baby One More Time.” She’s super sexualized, in a Catholic school uniform, but like she’s like 15. I mean, she’s a child. When I was working on the songs, we were trying to go through an evolution of the music, but then also how the music videos might change as well, with them based on the kind of videos that I’ve seen. To both, not mock them, but satirize them, but also to give people a sense of “this is the world that we live in and this is really happening.”

The songs they felt like music that I grew up on, that early-mid 2000s pop. I was at a party a few months ago and parties were still happening and people playing throwbacks, when we collectively realized how some of the lyrics that we would scream at age like eight, nine, ten. Things like Rihanna’s S&M, or Britney Spears lyrics, that we didn’t understand at the time. Your film did a great job with highlighting like these innocuously shocking lyrics for children…

So funny, it was like, you have that one Christina Aguilera song, “Genie in a Bottle,” and it’s so dirty. They would do interviews with her, and she’d say, “No, it’s not about sex. It’s about respect.” It’s funny how people will try to buy into the marketing even though they know deep down that the messages are there. “Genie in the Bottle” is like, “You got to rub me the right way.” Not all about sex. But you can tell people it’s a metaphor, and for some reason people buy it for a while. I find it fascinating how over and over again, the marketers with the labels try to deceive you that something blatantly sexual is not sexual.

Speaking of that era in pop culture, what is your opinion on the #freeBrittney movement? That whole story seems like something straight out of your film.

Yeah, #FreeBritney certainly feels like an episode straight out of Junie’s life. We’ve even adopted a #FreeJunie hashtag. I haven’t been following too closely, but Britney’s conservatorship certainly looks to be a way for some people to profit off of her. Conservatorships are really only for people in comas or who are so severely mentally ill, they can’t function on a daily basis. Since the conservatorship went into effect, she’s had a Vegas show and was on “The X-Factor,” working the entire time.
Again, I think we are getting back to this principle that women are a kind of property and not autonomous, conscious people. Britney has suffered from a very classic method of control, which is to permanently label a woman as crazy if she acts out. The fact that it’s led to conservatorship and control over her assets is a symptom of how little we regard women and their ability to manage their own lives, and how easily their assets can be taken from them.
If she’s so mentally ill that she needs constant care, then she shouldn’t be working. She should be getting care. But if she’s still capable of making the kind of money she makes, then it would follow that she is capable of managing her own life. Instead, she’s a cash cow for others while she has to ask permission to go to Walmart to spend her own money. It’s disturbing. But, unfortunately, not surprising.

In a film with several unsettling aspects, I found the PhD character to be the one that got under my skin the most. I didn’t really know what to make of him until the ending. What was the purpose of his character, and what did he represent?

He’s the kind of guy who says he’s a feminist but doesn’t actually respect women. He represents a man who thinks that studying feminism entitles him to certain kinds of attention from women. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the SNL skit where these guys try to pick up a woman at a bar, and when she says no, they’re like “Screw you, b-tch.”

He’s a creepy guy. I mean that’s kind of his deal, that he uses academia, he uses all of this rationalization. You see that a lot of those who commit sex crimes against women have a way of thinking, they’re treating her as if they were, you know, gentlemen.

So in the setting, I don’t think there really is a character other than him that really represents a kind of hostility towards women in deeper, sexual kind of way. He is sort of obsessive, thinking women are objects, women are things to be controlled, really in a basement dungeon kind of way.

What’s up next for you?

I have a couple projects. I’m working on a feature based on my experience when I was a stripper. I think it…ought to be a totally other debate that we have, but I read about how radical feminists tend to be really anti-sex work. I don’t consider myself a radical feminist, but I don’t disagree with that.

However, there are men who make money out of their bodies too, like as construction workers. I actually didn’t feel as exploited being a stripper as I do as a screenwriter. I also have a something in the pipeline on a woman mathematician.

These Radical Groups Just Got A Slice Of The $1.7 Billion Donation From Jeff Bezos’ Ex-Wife

MacKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, announced Tuesday she donated $1.7 billion to 116 nonprofit organizations. While some of those organizations aren’t controversial, others actively advocate for causes like abolishing prisons and police forces, encouraging elementary school children to explore their sexuality, providing gender reassignment surgery for imprisoned sexual predators, and forcing states to allow abortions up to the age of viability (which can be as late as 28 weeks, or the beginning of the third trimester).

One of the groups Scott donated to was the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a legal firm. The NCLR recently represented an inmate, who is serving time for sexual abuse of a minor, in his successful attempt to get state-funded gender reassignment surgery while in prison. The organization also led “drafting and submission of testimony” for a bill that would ban states from prohibiting abortion before a fetus is viable. In most cases, viability occurs as late as 24 to 28 weeks — or 6 to 7 months.

That abortion bill is also supported by the National Women’s Law Center, another recipient of Scott’s philanthropy.

Further, the National Women’s Law Center  created and advocates for a school curriculum that teaches students “to be effective advocates by studying the history and present of LGBTQ+ advocacy.” The curriculum is designed to spend two weeks teaching middle school students the history of LGBT advocacy and to encourage them to begin their own advocacy projects. It also instructs students to grade their schools on whether they respect students’ rights, with criteria including whether the school allows transgender students to cross-dress, use their bathroom of choice, and compete on a sports team that differs from their biological sex.

GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), another donation recipient, has also developed a school curriculum to shape students’ views on sexuality. GLSEN provides teachers with curriculum that tells elementary school children they’re “experiencing cisprivilege” if they identify as a boy or girl and have the accompanying traditionally masculine or feminine traits. The curriculum also encourages kids to explore their gender identity, teaching them that “self-expression can be really fun” and asking them to consider how their gender expression changes from day to day. In its instructions for elementary school students, GLSEN also warns teachers not to refer to students’ parents as “mom and dad,” and to “consider celebrating “Family Day” rather than Mother’s and Father’s days.”

Yet another group, Forward Together, encourages transgenderism in kids, while its Executive Director Eveline Shen has called abortion “a normal and necessary part of our lives.”

The Fund for Trans Generations has provided grant money to a “Black Trans Prayer Book” that “collects the stories, poems, prayers, meditation, spells, and incantations of Black Trans & Non-Binary people.” In addition to financing books of incantations and spells, the Fund for Trans Generations also specifically notes in its “funding priorities” that the organization is open to considering funding projects to decriminalize prostitution.

In addition, Scott donated to several organizations that support abolishing the police.

The Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice notes on its grant application page that its “anti-criminalization” work includes “work on policing and prison abolition.”

The Movement for Black Lives demands that “prisons, police and all other institutions that inflict violence on Black people must be abolished and replaced by institutions that value and affirm the flourishing of Black lives.” The organization also identifies itself as anti-capitalist, and its policy platform includes the “radical…redistribution of wealth,” by means that include raising the top marginal income tax bracket to 80 percent. The Movement for Black Lives also seeks to “end privatization” of schools and eliminate nonprofit teaching organizations like Teach for America that it slams as “corporate-backed.”

The Advancement Project released a list of demands that included defunding the police as well as removing officers from schools and providing “reparations for state violence against communities of color.”

Southerners on New Ground, an organization that describes itself as a “home for LGBTQ liberation,” also encourages followers to consider “strategies to abolish imprisonment and policing systems.”

And the Groundswell Fund — a grant-making organization with a special focus on “reproductive justice” — shared articles on Twitter advocating for the abolition of police.

More Than 300 Female Athletes, Olympians Urge NCAA To Protect Women’s Sports

More than 300 high-profile female athletes signed a letter released Wednesday asking the National College Athletic Association Board of Governors to preserve a “fair and level playing field” for women’s sports.

“True athletic parity for women demands that women’s sports be protected for biological females,” the letter said. “Protecting the integrity of women’s sports has, for decades, played an integral role in remedying past discrimination against women and empowering them to achieve their full athletic potential.”

The letter urges the NCAA not to boycott Idaho over passing the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which requires students to compete in sports based on their biological sex. The American Civil Liberties Union has challenged Idaho’s law in a lawsuit representing transgender athlete Lindsay Hecox, and attempted to start a boycott of the state.

The athletes who signed the letter — including world-class competitors as well as college athletes — insisted the issue was one of fairness, not politics. “Fairness for female athletes should not be a political or partisan issue,” they said. “We athletes have diverse views on many topics, but stand united on this fact: protecting the integrity of women’s sports is pro-woman, pro-fairness, and consistent with the purpose and promise of Title IX.”

Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall are cross country and track and field athletes at Idaho State University who signed the letter, and have lost to transgender competitors at the NCAA Big Sky Conference. Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, they’ve filed a motion supporting the Idaho law in the Hecox case.

“Allowing males to enter women’s sports eliminates the connection between an athlete’s effort and her success,” Kenyon said. “Under the NCAA’s current rules, I’m concerned that we will soon effectively have men’s sports and co-ed sports — without any dedicated category for females only.”

Meanwhile, a poll by Just The News and Scott Rasmussen last month found that three times as many Americans believed biological males should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports as thought they should.

“Activists like the ACLU are completely out of touch with what the vast majority of Americans actually want and believe about what’s fair to female athletes,” said Christiana Holcomb, an attorney from Alliance Defending Freedom who is representing the young women.

Those activists organizations calling for boycotts of Idaho “are just representing the voices that are the loudest,” Marshall added. “That’s why it’s so important that we’re standing up and representing ourselves.”

Although Kenyon and Marshall are speaking out publicly on the issue, Holcomb said she’s heard from female athletes who are afraid to speak out or have faced retaliation for their beliefs. “They’re afraid of the backlash that they might get on social media, of being labeled a transphobe or a hater,” she said, “everything except what they actually are: which is courageous, for standing up for women’s rights and women’s opportunity.”

Marshall also noted that at competitions, teams have to share locker rooms and lodging. “We have to share pretty much everything,” she said. While she hasn’t personally shared a facility with a transgender athlete, the inclusion of biological males on female teams raises concerns about shared showers and sleeping arrangements for traveling teams.

Chelsea Mitchell is another track athlete who’s suing to protect women’s sports in Connecticut. In high school, racing against transgender athletes, she lost out on four state championship titles and two All-New-England awards. “Going into college, I want a better playing field,” she said. “I want it to be more fair.”

“Anytime you allow a biological male into their category and allow them to take away spots and push female athletes down in the rankings, that is discrimination against female athletes because Title IX was designed to give them those opportunities,” Holcomb added. “There’s a lot of loud activist organizations out there that are striving to tell the American public that this is the way that sports should look and telling female athletes that they need to be silent.”

The letter’s signers also include cyclist Jennifer Wagner-Assali, who came in third place behind transgender competitor Rachel McKinnon in the UCI Masters Track World Championship in 2018, and marathon swimmer Sandra Bucha-Kerscher, a pioneer for women’s opportunities in sports during the 1970s. It’s also signed by Cynthia Monteleone, an award-winning track runner and high school track coach whose daughter is a track athlete.

Since Hecox and the ACLU filed their lawsuit, the Washington Post and Sports Illustrated have profiled Hecox, but the Sports Illustrated article hardly mentioned Kenyon and Marshall and the Post didn’t mention them at all.

The activist groups pushing against laws like Idaho’s, Holcomb says, are ultimately ascribing to a gender ideology that’s anti-science. “Biology is not bigotry,” she said. “Biology is the whole reason that we have separate sports for women, so that girls can compete and showcase their talents, earn their championship titles and their medals.”

“We hope the NCAA chooses to side with female athletes over activists.”