Rule #1. In an existential conflict, it helps to acknowledge that you are actually in one.
Here’s how it typically goes. Conservatives urge their Republican politicians to battle over certain issues like like life or gender like they actually matter. Republicans debate over which particular hill is worth dying on and then call for a subcommittee to debate the exact definition of a hill. The subcommittee then releases a statement saying they’re pro-hill with exceptions.
Governor Kristi Noem is looking for a third way. She doesn’t want to pick a side, not really. She recently vetoed the transgender sports bill that would protect women’s sports. She’s saying she likes some of it but other stuff not so much. Kristi Noem acted heroically when it came to Covid. She withstood the media onslaught. But now, in the face, of leftist outrage, she has crumbled.
Her third way is attempting to seem brave while not pissing off the left. There’s no threading that needle. It’s non-existent. The left is only silent in the face of complete capitulation. Barring that, you are literally Hitler.
That’s the worst part, it it’s all so pointless. When it comes to the gender issue, the left doesn’t care if you’re all the way against them or a little bit against them. You will be vilified as an enemy either way. Kristi Noem is going into battle whether she likes it or not. But she’s sounding an uncertain trumpet and chasing away her supporters when she needs them most.
When it comes to fundamental issues you can’t find a third way. There is team reality and team unreality. She is a politician who seeks to please both sides. This country is so divided, that there is no third way. A country that can’t decide on what the terms “life” or “human being” or “man and woman” mean is not a country ready for a compromise. Any talk of a “third way” is just terms of surrender.
March 22, 2021 at 5:19 pm
At this point, I disagree with you on this one. I could be persuaded otherwise. My understanding is that an individual state is legally in charge of regulating schools K-12. Banning biological males to compete with females is a slam dunk in court for this. The college issue is more squishy due to the interstate nature of the conferences. This one is not that black and white due to the distinction between arenas/legal jurisdictions.
March 23, 2021 at 9:41 am
Let’s say it’s not a black/white issue. The only way to have it out is have it out. You have to draw a line in the sand.
The Federalist did a nice piece. Worth a read.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/22/bowing-to-corporate-demands-for-watered-down-bill-gov-kristi-noem-sells-out-womens-sports/
March 24, 2021 at 9:53 am
Thanks for the article. I didn’t realize Idaho had a similar law and didn’t have any suits brought from the NCAA. It would be interesting to see their law’s language and any long-term legal ramifications. A test case can show up a decade later from the bill’s passage; I suppose this is where the line is tested. (The article had the SD language, not ID’s; a comparison between the languages in the article would have been a good addition.)
Taking out the suit and retaliation section (section IV) for the girls affected is a mystery. That would make the bill almost moot since (a) a girl couldn’t legally fight the boy or school allowing the boy to compete with the girls or (b) protect girl whistleblowers. Taking out section IV is effectively removing the line in the sand.