Why the Left Thinks a Woman Can Have a “Male Brain” but a Man Can’t

You probably know by now that Google fired one of their engineers, for writing a memo accusing the company of being closed minded to different viewpoints.

James Damore suggested it might be possible that computer science is a field dominated by men because women, by virtue of being women, actually prefer other jobs.

This was Google’s idea of a capital offense.

One brave female scientist had the courage to write an article discussing the science that explains why he is correct and we collectively wonder whether she will be forced to walk the plank as well.  

While there’s plenty to be said about the witch hunting element of this story, let’s talk about the gender angle for a moment.

After all, it is 2017, and we  have spent the last two years arguing about whether gender is something you chose for yourself or something chosen for you.

Specifically, we have been told there is a fundamental human right to determine your own gender.

In support of this position, we are told that you can, in part, identify whether a five-year old was “born into the wrong body” based on their toy and clothing preferences and how they feel about themselves.

In this context, there is an acknowledgement that boys and girls behave differently and transgenderism is what happens when a male brain is put into a female body or vice versa.

Ultimately, we are told that unless each of us takes up the cause of those whose brain doesn’t match their body by celebrating their desire to modify their body we will be sentencing them to a life of psychological torment.

This perspective is now progressive orthodoxy.

Enter James Damore’s memo.

While he doesn’t use the precise term, he suggests that he and the other men who make up the majority of the technology workforce have been born with a “male brain” that inclines them toward that sector.

He further suggests that those born with a “female brain” might be inclined in a different direction because their brains are wired differently.

And Google loses its mind.

Strange, isn’t it?

If a woman claims to be born with a “male brain” that compels her to undergo plastic surgery and hormone therapy, she is a transgender hero.

If a man claims to have a male brain that predisposes him to like computer science, he is to be drawn and quartered.

And you’re supposed to think this is progress.

If this seems just a little bit insane, you’re not wrong.

But there is a kind of logic behind it.

A logic that long ago rejected the idea that some things are true and some things are false regardless of how we feel about them.

This logic sees the world entirely through the framework of the oppressed and the oppressor.

They will agree with you if you are transgender because you are part of “the oppressed”.

But, when a “cisgender”, straight, white, male makes the exact same argument, they’ll mock him.

Just because they don’t like him.

The cognitive dissonance they should experience eludes them because somewhere along the line they forgot that “speaking truth to power” requires some concern about what is true.





What Google’s Firing of Free Thinker Says About the Left

The tolerance movement claims another victim. This time, at Google.

An Engineer named James Damore wrote a 10 page memo claiming that Google has created an environment that is hostile to differences of opinion.

In the memo, he wrote, “This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed”.

He went on to suggest that the over-representation of men in technology jobs could be, in-part, attributable to the fact that men and women are different and not entirely the result of sexism.

In an apparent effort to underscore all of Damore’s arguments about an echo chamber, Google fired him.

Danielle Brown, Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, said,

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

In other words, “of course you are free to say what you think, just make sure that we want to hear it first.”

Authoritarian impulses aside, we shouldn’t ignore the irony of a company that exists to make assumptions based on data firing someone for suggesting there are differences between men and women.

We all know Google sells advertising, right?

Is there anyone who believes they’re placing advertisements for purses on the screens of twenty- something year old men?

I doubt it.

Google is happy to make money off gender differences, but they’ll just insist those differences don’t exist.  After all, they’re good progressives.

The coverage of this story has been as ridiculous as the story itself.

Gizmodo referred to Damore’s memo as an “Anti-Diversity Screed”.

While it did make arguments that are not politically correct, if you read it, you can’t honestly refer to it as anything but respectful.

The left’s outrage at the respectful presentation of different ideas seems to say much more about them than the people they are perpetually outraged at.

We are now living in a world where questions themselves are offensive.

Strangely, while they are convinced their reason for living is to force you to challenge your biases, the moment you suggest they might also have biases worth evaluating, you’re fired.

While James Damore may have lost his job, he’s not going to be the real loser in all of this.

One day, the left will look back and ask, “When did we become afraid of learning?”

Maybe they’ll point to the day the world’s biggest search engine decided it was afraid of new information.

Meanwhile, men and women will still be different and by then, there may not even be anyone left who is mad about it.

WA Democrats: If You Don’t Support Abortion, We Don’t Support You

The Democratic party has long been the party associated with abortion.  But Washington State Democrats have taken the next step.

Many Democrats nationally were irked recently  when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Washington DC said that it will help elect pro-life Democrats in their effort to take back the House of Representatives in Washington DC.

That won’t be happening here in Washington State.

In an interview with The Stranger, State Democratic party Chairman Tina Podlodowski  has stated that they will not support any candidate who does not support abortion.

While the state Democratic party has operated this way functionally for years, this may be the first time that position was stated publicly.

Since Washington State allows candidates to declare their party preference without the support or endorsement of a political party, this does not prohibit someone who opposes abortion from running as a Democrat.

It just ensures that the state party will not support that candidate.

The Republican Party has supported a handful of legislators who support abortion that have frustrated the pro-life majority of the Republican party.

Many voters have an issue or two that are most important to them.  Some even consider themselves to be single issue voters.

Here in Washington State, we officially have  a single issue political party.

Maybe the Dumbest Headline Ever

Every journalist hates the term “fake news”.

They want to be taken seriously.

But sometimes they justify the label.

For example, this headline.


Transgender man gives birth to a boy?

I could have sworn I saw this headline on the cover of the National Enquirer about fifteen years ago when the line between the intentionally ridiculous and the serious wasn’t quite so fuzzy.

Let’s break this down for a moment.

If you believe in biology and objective reality, you know that  men don’t give birth to anything.  So the phrase “man gives birth…” is a nonstarter.

If you’re giving birth, you’re a woman.

But let’s say you are a reality denier.

Let’s say you will deny any objective truth in order to avoid offending someone you view as being part of a victim class.

Shouldn’t you at least do so consistently?

When you say “Transgender man gives birth to boy” you initially deny the connection between gender and biology but then–two words later–assume the gender of the baby based on his biology.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging when a baby is a boy.

Nor is there anything wrong with acknowledging that people who give birth to baby humans are called women.

Both are observations, not judgments.

But the fact that CNN is willing to assume the gender of the baby but not the mother indicates that communicating truth is not their first priority.

Like a virus taking over a computer, the mind that writes the sentence “Transgender man gives birth to boy” has been completely corrupted by political pressure.

It can no longer be trusted to perform the function for which it was created until it undergoes serious repair.

If they were to write, “Man gives birth to homo sapien of undetermined gender” people would furrow their brow, but they might respect the desire for consistency.

As currently written, they’re just letting us know that they know what is true but they’re happy to lie about it if the social pressure is strong enough.

Which gets us back to the “fake news” bit.

If you want people to take you seriously, you have to take yourself seriously.  At a bare minimum, that should require the courage to call a spade a spade, even if you heard it would prefer to be a heart.


Key State Senate Race A Dead-Heat After Primary

A race that will likely decide the balance of power in the Washington State Senate next year is virtually tied based on early primary results released Tuesday evening.

With the Republicans currently holding a 25-24 majority in the state Senate, this seat, now held by the Republicans, is an opportunity for the Democrats to take back Senate leadership that has been controlled by the Republicans since 2012.

Democrat Manka Dhingra was leading the primary with 11,928 votes (50.54%).  Republican Jingyoung Lee Englund is second with 10,052 votes (42.59%).  Parker Harris, generally believed to be right of center independent, was third with 1,620 votes (6.86%).

Only Dhingra and Englund will advance to the general election.

Since Harris’s support is believed to be from Republicans, it is expected that much of his support would go to Englund in a two-way general election.

Assuming those who voted for Parker are likely to vote Republican in the general election, the Republican/Democrat vote difference is only 300 votes.

Late arriving ballots, which tend to favor Republican candidates, could push Dhingra below the 50% mark when all votes have been counted.

Regardless, all indications are that this race will be very close.  It is also expected to break all-time spending records in a state legislative race.

Republican control of the Senate for the last five years has allowed them to negotiate as equals with the Democrats.

A Democrat victory in this race would give them control over every branch of Washington State’s government and likely re-energize Governor Inslee’s far left priorities.

Several taxes – capital gains tax, real estate excise tax, and an energy tax –  proposed by Governor Inslee but rejected by the Senate in the last budget negotiations could get new life in a Democrat controlled Senate.

Also, many far-left social policies including regulation of pro-life pregnancy centers, efforts to force businesses to pay for abortions, and attempts to regulate speech for licensed therapists have failed to become law only because of the current Senate leadership.

While much of Washington State believes 2017 is an “off-year” for elections, in reality, this special-election in Redmond, Woodinville, Kirkland, Duvall, and Sammamish will decide the direction of our state for the foreseeable future.

King County Board of Health Vote Forces “Limited Service Pregnancy Centers” to Post Warnings

The outcome was predetermined, but it was still a little bit surprising.

The meeting began with an hour of public testimony, limited to one minute per speaker, and dominated by those opposed to the proposal targeting pregnancy centers.

Nevertheless, the King County Board of Health voted 10-1 to require “limited service pregnancy centers” to post notices in their facilities, in 48 point font in 10 different languages, that say “This facility is not a health care facility.”

Councilmember Kathy Lambert was the lone vote in opposition.

The purported reason for the regulations was to prevent delay in receiving pregnancy information that can have an adverse health impact on both the woman and the baby.

However, public testimony in support of the proposal was conspicuously devoid of anyone who claimed to have been deceived, delayed, or otherwise harmed by a pregnancy center.

That isn’t to say no one was there to support the regulation.

A small parade of interns from the far-left legal group Legal Voice had several bad things to say.  None of them, however, claimed any personal contact with the organizations, much less harm.

Legal Voice is the organization who sent fake clients into pregnancy centers under false pretenses.   Unsurprisingly, they reported that the centers were deceptive and dangerous.

The staff report prepared by the Board of Health that is frequently referred to as the justification for the rule relied entirely upon the Legal Voice report.

Kim Triller, executive director of Care Net of Puget Sound, told the board emphatically that the contents of the report were false, but the board seemed uninterested.

We are not aware of any attempt by the Board of Health to independently verify whether the accusations were true.

The vast majority of those who attended the hearing were opposed to the proposed regulation. No fewer than 10 women, who had personally been served by the pregnancy centers, described how the pregnancy centers served them.

Council members attempted to acknowledge the good work the centers were doing and repeatedly emphasized that this was not an attempt to shut down the centers.

Still, the political rather than policy motives were transparent.

While the committee claimed to have been working on the issue for more than a year, they appeared to have done little actual thinking about the rule itself.

For example, a significant amount of time was spent trying to figure out how many pieces of 8.5 x 11 paper were required to print the notice in 48 point font in ten different languages.   That fairly rudimentary conversation seemed to betray the fact that very little actual thinking had been done about the rule.

Five minutes before the passage of the regulations one member pointed out that requiring pregnancy centers to post the warning on internet advertising in ten different languages makes many forms of internet advertising illegal or impractical for pregnancy centers.

Imagine the impact of the following advertisement with a warning printed in 10 different languages.

Kinda takes away the impact, doesn’t it?  Well. That’s the point.

While the notice might actually fit on a banner of this size, it could be illegal for a pregnancy center to purchase a smaller advertisement because there wouldn’t be room for the notice.

That fact creates a significant constitutional problem for the rule.

The council, however, was now more than two hours into the meeting. They appeared to be losing interest in discussing the actual impact.

So they just passed it.

Constitutional concerns about the rule abound.  Additional free speech concerns include prohibitions on government forcing people to engage in “compelled speech”.   Additionally, the rules would not apply to centers that perform abortions.

Several federal courts have found similar regulations to be unconstitutional and an appeal of a similar regulation from California is on the Supreme Court’s conference schedule for September 25, 2017.  As a result, the Supreme Court may soon be speaking to this issue soon.

Constitutional issues aside, it remains unclear whether any centers in King County actually fall under the definition of a “limited service pregnancy center” according to the rule.

The definition of a “limited service pregnancy center” excludes “health care facilities… where licensed, certified, registered, or otherwise authorized health care providers conduct functions that make it governed by 70.02 RCW.”

Virtually every pro-life pregnancy center meets this definition of a “health care facility” and is therefore exempt.

It is possible that in their effort to appease the abortion lobby, the county has drawn a circle so small that no one is inside it.

If that’s the case, even abortion industry lackeys can’t help but wonder whether the inevitable legal costs to the county are worth the effort to regulate no one.

Regardless, you can be sure that groups like Planned Parenthood, Legal Voice, and the National Abortion Rights Action League will use these rules to harass pro-life facilities even if, in the end, the rule is found not to apply to them.

After all, that’s the entire point of the rule is harassment, isn’t it?

Those who receive political contributions helping those who make political contributions.


Three Reasons Progressives Want You to Hate Them

A lot of you have probably had this experience.

Someone is yelling at you. They want answers. They are demanding to know why you hate them.

You’re confused. You’re sure you don’t hate this person because, for starters, you’ve never met them before.

You’re willing to grant that they don’t make an awesome first impression, but what you feel isn’t close to hate.

But the accusation is frustrating, nonetheless.

You go out of your way to be kind, but still, anytime you express your opinions, people accuse you of being hateful.

Well, before you wring your hands too much more, it can be helpful to remember that some people want you to hate them.

Here are three reasons why.

  1. They get Oppression Points

First, they want you to hate them because they get oppression points. In many places today, being a victim is an accomplishment. Just google “fake hate crimes.” You don’t harm yourself and accuse someone else of doing it unless you think it will help you somehow. In social justice warrior circles, being a victim is valued more highly than being disciplined, industrious, or smart. People want to believe you to hate them because it gives their life significance.

They can’t go back to their snowflake convention with, “They disagree with me, but they’re enjoyable people, and our kids get along great.” They need you to hate them because believing they are hated is a fundamental part of their identity.

     2. They Don’t Want to Have to Consider Your Arguments

Second, they want you to hate them because if you don’t, they would feel obligated to consider what you have to say. The respectful thing to do with people you disagree with is to engage with them through an exchange of ideas that involves mutual respect and a sincere attempt to understand the other’s perspective.

But they don’t want to have to explain why kids don’t need a mom and dad or why a white woman can identify as a man but not as an African American. They just want to be able to do whatever they want to do and never feel judged for doing it. By telling themselves that you are hateful, they relieve themselves of the need to defend their ideas from critique or otherwise engage you on a human level.

Which leads to the third reason they want to believe you hate them.

     3. They Hate You

They want to believe you hate them because they hate you. That is the great irony in this scenario. They hate you because you think there are ways to show love other than through approval. In their mind, if you hate them, that somehow validates their hatred of you. That’s the nature of bitterness.

The sad fact is, once you choose to hate someone, everything they do is offensive. That means even your kindnesses will be interpreted in a way that allows them to think you’re hateful. And there’s nothing you can do about it.

Of course, not everyone wants to believe you hate them. There are plenty of people of every political persuasion who can acknowledge the goodwill of people they disagree with.

But the next time you encounter someone who refuses to give your motives the benefit of the doubt, in the words of the great American philosopher Taylor Swift, “Shake it off.”

It could be that they accuse you of hating them because they want you to.

Your job is just to make sure it’s not true.

The Collateral Damage of the War on Reality

As two more recent stories indicate, the war on gender has nothing to do with bathrooms.

In the first story, a Canadian parent wants their child’s birth certificate to be the first to identify a baby as neither male or female. The parent, who identifies as neither male or female, had this to say about the baby.

“I’m recognizing them as a baby and trying to give them all the love and support to be the most whole person that they can be outside of the restrictions that come with the boy box and the girl box.”

While all of this started as a call for compassion for the tiny percentage of the population who feel like they are the “other” gender,  it has quickly led to rejecting the idea that there is anything that can be known from one’s anatomy.

But asking children to reach conclusions about things they know nothing about is self-evidently silly.

When a child asks “What am I?”, it doesn’t help if all the adults look back at them and ask, “I don’t know, what are you?”

The adults are supposed to know things the kids don’t.

Still, it could be worse.

While some parents are choosing not to impose a gender, other parents don’t have the same patience.

In this story, three, queer parents of a three-year-old that they dubbed “queerspawn” have determined that their child is transgender.  The author of this story describes himself as transgender and asexual.  He says this about the child.

He was assigned female at birth, but his non-conforming behavior was clear and consistent from day one. It started with his hair. He hated wearing it long, and he hated it when we did anything with it. No ponytails, no braids — nothing. He also refused to wear dresses and skirts.

The child probably can’t be trusted to sleep through the night without wetting the bed, but we’re supposed to believe she has a grasp on gender norms as expressed through hair length and clothing and the awareness to understand both their significance, how to reject them, and the consequences of doing so.

While sure their child is transgender, they now wonder whether she will be queer as well.

I don’t wish him any more marginalization and oppression than he’ll already face as a trans person. But I can’t help but think that if he’s queer, there’ll be yet another community he can join, another supportive place for him to vent about that oppression. There are other queer people who will listen and sympathize with him beyond his family. He will need those people when he gets older and flies away from us.

Some parents hope their kids have an adventure, a healthy family, a place that makes them happy, and life-long love.

Other parents label their three-year-old transgender, hope she is attracted to men, which they say would make her gay because they think she’s a boy, and then hope she finds a community to vent about oppression.

Sadly, in 2017, this qualifies as parenting.

I have no doubt these parents want the best for their child.

But it’s hard to know what is good for your child when your view of the world has replaced the concepts of “good” and “bad” with “preferred” or “not preferred.”

We can all understand the appeal of a world is which nothing is inherently wrong, and the only possible consequences of our behavior were environmental which would allow us to manage the fallout by simply fixing the environment.

If, however, that world doesn’t actually exist, if our pursuit of our preferences continues to collide with the natural laws of the universe, the only actual outcome of our pursuits will be pain.

As is usually the case when adults make mistakes, kids will end up as collateral damage in our war on reality.



Will a Privacy Law Ruin Washington’s Economy?

Why should you be cool with men undressing in front of girls?

Because money.

That’s the argument being made by opponents of privacy rights in Washington State. They claim that if Washington State adopts rules that require schools to separate facilities based on a students sex then Washington’s economy will collapse.

Their evidence? North Carolina.

You may be recall that North Carolina passed a bill called HB 2 which, though very different than than I-1552 currently being considered in Washington, also dealt with policies surrounding access to private facilities.

The progressive mob worked very hard to keep HB 2 from becoming law, but it passed anyway. At which point they channeled their passion into doing whatever they could to harm the economy of North Carolina.

They convinced pop stars to cancel concerts and tried to get companies to stop doing business in the state.

They convinced the NCAA to move some basketball games out of North Carolina and the NBA to move the All-Star out of Charlotte and into New Orleans.

They neglected to mention that Louisiana has the same laws that they were so upset about in North Carolina.


Politicians got in on the act too. Governors in Washington, New York, and California banned travel state travel to North Carolina. Seattle’s Mayor did the same.

What was the fallout of the year-long effort to drive the economy of North Carolina into the ground?

Maybe not as bad as you think.

At the end of 2016, Forbes magazine still named North Carolina #2 on its annual “Best States for Business” list.

In 2016, Site Selection magazine ranked North Carolina as the #2 best business climate.

In 2017, North Carolina rose to #1.

Chief Executive magazine ranked North Carolina as the #3 state for business.

Washington State ranks worse than North Carolina in every case.

Before, during, and after the outrage of 2016, North Carolina has had one of the fastest growing economies in the country.

Unemployment is down and employment is up.

In 2016, North Carolina outpaced national averages in such categories as gross domestic product, labor force expansion, payroll jobs and inflation-adjusted wages.

This is not the story of an economy on the verge of collapse because of their belief in biology and privacy.

The highly publicized efforts to stop people from traveling to the state didn’t seem to work either.

Tourism in North Carolina’s increased 4.3% in 2016 and broke all-time records.

Was there an impact at all? Maybe

Supporters of HB 2 acknowledged that the worst-case scenario is an economic impact in North Carolina of one-tenth of one percent of the state’s economy. It could be less than that, which gets your perilously close to zero.

In general, however, Washington is looking up to North Carolina when it comes to its business climate.

But there’s something else to keep in mind as well.

The concern about potential economic impact isn’t a concern at all.

It’s a threat.

They aren’t concerned that passing Initiative 1552 would naturally create economic consequences, they’re promising to do their best to hurt people if it does as a way of deterring others from following suit.

But there’s a problem with this argument here in Washington, in addition to the fact that it didn’t work in North Carolina.

Are they going to convince Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, Starbucks and the Jonas Brothers to take their business someplace more progressive?

I don’t think so either.

But even if their threats could work, even if they were able to harm the state’s economy out of spite, what kind of people trade the privacy and security of their wives and daughters for money anyway?

Hopefully not you.

Women’s Spa Under Fire for No-Penis Rule

Proponents of genderless locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms have long used slogans like “free to pee” to minimize the issue.

“Who cares where people go to the bathroom?” No one.

“Are you going to have a genital monitor standing outside the door?”  Of course no one is interested in that.

They miss the point on purpose, most likely.

But a recent story out of Toronto highlights the real problem of creating a one-size-fits-all rule that applies to every situation regardless of how unique it is.

The Body Blitz Spa operates two facilities in Toronto.  This business is unique because it is a single-sex facility enjoyed in the nude.

A naked spa for women.

Apparently there are women who enjoy taking their clothes off with strangers and doing spa things.

To each her own, right?  No judgment here.

Even if this isn’t your particular cup of tea, it isn’t hard to imagine why someone who enjoys being naked in a spa exclusively for women might feel differently knowing that a man could waltz in at any time.

Well, this poor spa has the misfortune of being in a gender specific business in 2017.

In an attempt to acknowledge the tremendous confusion about gender while still being in business and honoring the needs of their clientele, they had adopted a no-penis rule.  Men who had undergone gender reassignment surgery would be allowed, but people with a penis (still known by virtually everyone as men) would not be allowed.

Naturally, the progressive mob was outraged.

How dare they try to reach a compromise that attempted to balance the needs of the supermajority of their clients as well as the handful of people who experience gender dysphoria.

Compromise is so kindergarten.

These snowflakes are in college now and in college we learned that some women have a penis and anyone who disagrees deserves to be burned at the stake.

So burn they will.

Metaphorically of course.

They started the obligatory boycott, which would be incomplete without its own hashtag.  #BoycottBodyBlitz

Their Facebook page is full of comments from people who have probably never been to the spa, and maybe have never been to the country, giving their two cents about how awful all the people involved are.

Standard fare.

Though this is happening in Canada, it’s instructive to those of us in Washington State.

Right now, Washington State has the same rule in place.  There are spas in Washington State that provide similar opportunities for women to enjoy spa treatments in the nude.  But presently, Washington State law makes those facilities legally liable if they attempt to stop me from walking in and taking my clothes off.

That’s unreasonable.

And only the most unreasonable among us are unable to see that.

Fortunately, there’s a solution. Initiative 1552 would eliminate the one-size-fits-all rule that currently applies to every public accommodation in the state and once again give businesses owners the freedom to create policies that consider everyone’s interests.

In addition, I-1552 would requires schools to maintain separate locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms for boys and girls.

There is only four weeks left to get the 330,000 signatures necessary to allow the voters to have a voice on this issue.

If you haven’t signed the petition,  click here to have a petition mailed to you , your friends, and family can sign the petition.  Then click here to make a contribution.

The thing is, there is middle ground in this debate.

I’m sure most of us can agree not to care where people go to the bathroom if the other side can agree to respect personal boundaries.

Sadly, that option wasn’t ever offered.

In one day we moved from, “Love can’t exist without boundaries” to “Boundaries are bigotry. Bigot.”

Which means we have to insist.  Politely but firmly.

It isn’t about someone being free to pee.

It’s about no one being free to make even simple decisions without consulting government first.

Share this with every business owner you know who doesn’t want to be sued for protecting the privacy of people in their business.

Then share it with every parent and grandparent who doesn’t want their 13-year old daughter or granddaughter forced to share a locker room with a boy who claims to be a girl.

Compassion does require you to care about other people’s kids. But it also requires you to care about your own.

I-1552 is your last chance to fix this in Washington State.  You have less than four weeks.

Or we can do nothing and watch businesses like the Body Blitz Spa shut down because people were afraid to defend sanity.

And while you’re at it, you might want to work on what you’ll say when your kindergartner comes home and tells you that some women have a penis.