The Gender Critical Greens PAC
Supports the Diverse Strategies Advanced by Feminists
To Protect Women’s Sex-Based Rights from infringement by the Equality Act
The PAC Board appreciates the diverse strategies women in the United States (struggling for the sex-based righs of women) have taken to advance women’s interests in the face of the threats posed by the Equality Act.
Feminist Organizations have advanced diverse strategies
to protect women’s rights from the Equality Act.
The problem with the Equality Act is that it seeks to subsume gender-identtity as a component of the definition of sex. It also includes language supporting a concept called self-id, by-passing the objective criteria established by the UK’s Gender Recognition Act, tossing into the air, long-settled protections of the rights of women. Doing this will require that those protections be re-litigated in the Courts everytime they might conflict with rights asserted by men who claim to be women.
Feminists in Struggle (FIST) crafted the Feminist Amendments to the Equality Act (the FAEA) which seek to replace references throughout HR5 to ‘sex (including sexual orientation and gender-identity)’ with “sex, sexual orientation, and sex stereotyping”. The FAEA seeks to amend the House bill which is already in the Senate. It also carves out explicit exceptions to protect “female-only facilities . . . where women are sharing private facilities or are in states of undress and/or where their privacy may be compromised and/or their safety may be at risk from male-pattern violence against females' as well as “female-only programs, . . . to advance the status of women and girls (where) . . . they have been previously excluded or underrepresented”. FIST believes such language (protecting against discrimination for sex stereotypes) can protect the dignity of “trans-identified individuals” with respect to employment, housing, credit, jury service, etc. without putting at risk the sex-based rights, protections and affirmative action programs which women have fought long and hard for. FIST still seeks a sponsor for their language.
FIST, along with the LGB Alliance US, XXAmazons and the Georgia Green Party last year launched the Coalition for the Feminist Amendments (CoFA) to advocate for the FAEA.
When (before their recent name change) they still operated as the Women’s Human Rights Campaign – USA, Women’s Declaration International – USA (WDI-USA) crafted a version of HR5 which adds sexual orientation to the list of protected classes. WDI-USA opposes the Equality Act and supports instead their own Equality for All Act (EFAA). Their language would replace the use of the word “sex” in existing Civil Rights statutes with “sex, sexual orientation, nonconformity to sex-based stereotypes”. Rather than subsuming sexual orientation and gender identity as components of sex, the EFAA would have each “stand alone as equally protected characteristics”, “providing clear, non-circular definitions for any terms the document references”. WDI-USA states that “The Declaration (for Womens Sex-Based Rights) is a clear call to law and policy makers to retain the sex-based biological definition of woman.” Their language removes any references to “transgender” or “queer”, which HR5 would add, while maintaining references to lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. WDI USA still seeks a sponsor for their language.
Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) has adopted a position opposing altogether passage of the Equality Act which would alter the list of protected classes enumerated in U.S. Civil Rights statutes. WoLF has offered instead, with the support of Independent Womens Voice, model legislation for the consideration of the federal and state legislatures to codify a Women’s Bill of Rights. This language provides for clear definitions of the language necessary to protect the sex-based rights of women, including the words: woman, man, girl, boy, female, male, mother, father. It clarifies that equality under the law does not always mean identical or the same. It acknowledges explicitly a number of circumstances under the law where the rights of women are best protected by distinguishing between the sexes. This language would impose a standard of intermediate constitutional scrutiny, which forbids unfair discrimination against similarly-situated males and females but allows the law to distinguish between the sexes where such distinctions are substantially related to important governmental objectives. It would require the collection of data by public institutions disaggregated by sex, as important to monitor sex-based discrimination and efforts to eradicate same.
How we got here
After many years of struggle, LGB advocacy organizations had built support for amendments to Title VII of the nation’s Civil Rights statutes to extend protected class status to sexual orientation. With the one exception of the 109th Congress, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA has been introduced in every term of Congress since 1974. ENDA had an excellent chance of passage first during the Clinton administration, and then again in Obama’s Second Term when the Democrats momentarily held a majority in both chambers of Congress. Each time, its passage was scuttled by the advocates for trans gender employees organizing under the slogan of ‘nothing about us, without us’, as if the performance of gender had anything to do with same-sex-attraction.
In the United States, ENDA became the basis for the shotgun wedding which morphed LGB advocacy groups into the current, and particularly post-Obergefeld ‘TQ, Inc.’ lobby (as many gender critical organizers now call it in discussions of the corporate high-jacking of LGB advocacy). In 2007, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank introduced a trans-inclusive version of ENDA and work began all over again to build support for its passage. In 2015, the first version of the Equality Act took its place. The Equality Act sought to extend protected class status to a trans-inclusive conception of sex, but also extending such protections from Title VII employment cases, to housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and jury service.
Problem was that with a so-called trans-inclusive conception of sex, if adopted, existing Civil Rights statutes would suddenly exclude women. Since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, women have established a growing body of setttled case-law protecting women’s rights on the basis of sex. Throughout the Civil Rights statutes, where the 1964 (and subsequent) Act(s) had included ”sex”, the Equality Act proposes the inclusion of ”sex (including sexual-orientation and gender-identity)” instead.
By subsuming gender-identity as a component of the definition of sex, HR5 (as the Equality Act is currently known in the 117th Congress) along with language supporting a concept called self-id, by-passing the objective criteria established by the UK’s Gender Recognition Act, tosses into the air, long-settled protections of the rights of women, requiring that those protections be re-litigated in the Courts everytime they might conflict with rights asserted by men who claim to be women.
When Democrats took majority control of the U.S. House, Speaker Pelosi pledged to send the Equality Act to the Senate. She did just that, on a largely party-line vote, ignoring poignant testimony by feminists and others related to the threats these changes pose to protection of women’s sex-based rights under the law.
When Biden took the White House in an election where Pelosi retained the gavel, and a democratic Vice President became the tiebreaker in an evenly divided Senate, Biden promised to pass the Equality Act in his first 100 days. So far the sex-based rights of women have been protected by the Senate’s filibuster rule and Republican opposition which has bottled up HR5 in Senate Judiciary. Even so, President Biden has sought to accomplish by Executive Order what he would likely fail to do with the support of Congress. Within an hour or two of taking the Oath of Office, he had signed EO-13988, directing each agency in the incoming Administration to review existing rules and to report within 90 days how rule making might bypass the necessity for Congressional deliberation. Days later President Biden signed EO-14004 to reverse the Trump administration ban on trans-identified persons serving in the U.S. military.
The TQ, Inc. Lobby has thoroughly captured the Democrat Party and is coming now for some factions of the Republican Party. It is left to feminists and pro-feminists to organize a legitimate political opposition to the profit driven pharmaceutical industry led lobby for gender ideology and its transhumanist agenda for our future.