A high school track athlete in Bridgeport, West Virginia, has joined an ongoing lawsuit challenging the inclusion of trans-identified males in female sports.
And until someone is personally touched by this sort of absurd, degrading BS, they just don't believe that it's really happening. Especially traditional liberal women who haven't been captured by the ideology yet because they don't work in the arts, social work, education, or healthcare. It sounds so crazy and conspiratorial, it's just not credible to them. Until it is. At which point it becomes just a matter of 'get used to it', because it's like encountering a tsunami: gender ideology obliterates all reason, destroying once-functional brains and replacing them with propaganda.
I'm way beyond tired of this. I will not engage with any adult who supports this evil and I will shun them. They are not allowed on my property and I will not do business with them (I'm a small farmer). Any politician that has wobbled is dead to me, and party doesn't matter. Any Mengele that has mangled a child needs to go to prison.
This is very concerning, and consistent with the behavior of other young men claiming to be girls to be allowed into girls' sports. The boy in Mass who injured girls in a basketball game, for example, is on record as having been kicked off a rowing team for sexually harassing a teammate:
We need some kind of corroboration of her story though, to give it the credence it deserves. Right now it's just her speaking out, and weirdly her parents are not quoted in any reporting despite the fact that she's a 15-year-old minor.
The quotes almost certainly come from the legal documents. Since she is the victim seeking legal redress, it's perfectly normal for the lawsuit documents to record her statements. Her parents were not eyewitnesses to the sexual harassment, so their words would have .minimal legal value, at least in the first phase of court filings. It's not weird at all.
Oof, you're not going to try to argue against the idea of corroboration are you. That's a bad look that we don't need on our side, we're supposed to be the reasonable ones. We're clearly not talking only about legal documents here.
"Not talking about legal documents"??? Here's what the article says: "According to a statement by the 15 year-old girl added as evidence to the lawsuit State of Tennessee, et al v. Cardona, et al (U.S. Secretary of Education)" The statements under discussion in the article were made in a legal filing in a court of law. Your comment makes no sense at all.
Your lack of reading comprehension is not helping.
"Not talking ONLY about legal documents."
That’s right, I’m talking about the reporting, not just legal documents. Reporting includes a lot more than just looking at legal documents. It could include talking to people, or officials, or accessing other records from other sources. As in the example I gave above, for example. And as you know well, I’m sure.
And I'm talking about corroboration. Corroboration is confirming information from a separate source. As I'm sure you know.
And credibility. Corroboration is needed for credibility. As I'm sure you know.
Again, you are not helping here. Not at all. We see this kind of bullsh*t all the time from the other side. We don't need it from our own.
So, hopefully there's corroborating information that will be available in an update. Ms. Gluck and Reduxx are amazing at what they do, I'll bet they find some.
Regarding your statement, "I’m talking about the reporting"... In journalism, there are different kinds of reporting. Most often, journalists report the basic facts of something that just happened. That's what Gluck does with this article. The purpose of this kind of reporting is to quickly announce what is taking place, as it's taking place.
"Talking to people, or officials, or accessing other records from other sources" is in-depth investigative journalism. That's an expensive, time-consuming task. It requires many weeks of labor, often including travel. Usually, big money media companies like the New York Times specialize in those stories. Small-scale news organizations rarely can afford those kinds of projects. How would Gluck undertake that project? Where would she get the funding? Or time?
Very few articles she publishes are in-depth investigative journalism. Understandably, given her limited resources. Why would she have to change her methods into investigative journalism for this particular story? How is she supposed to make that happen?
Finally, how is it "helping" "our side" to make personal attacks instead of debating ideas? What is gained by demeaning someone for a "lack of reading comprehension;" or "bullsh*t."? How is that encouraging the productive exchange of ideas?
Now you're hand-waving to distract from your mistakes, instead of just accepting that you made mistakes and moving on. That doesn't help the movement either.
This isn't about you. This is a common sense observation about the importance of credibility, and how corroborating information on this poor young woman's story will establish it.
Once again, this isn't about you. Please suck up your ego and move on. We are fighting a cult full of out-of-control egos, and you are not helping anything or anyone by losing control of yours.
Back to the actual topic - I am hoping there'll be more information soon, this accusation if corroborated will really help bring the pattern to light of boys bullying their way into girls' sports being sexual bullies also - because of course, as we know, they are most likely young autogynephiles for whom it's all part of their fetish.
It is tragic that for a young girl to be subjected to this abuse under the eyes and with the apparent approval of school authorities. Shame on them!
That's sexual abuse, sex discrimination and harassment enabled by the coach, school and authorities.
So all the girls need to be ashamed, driven from their sports activities or submit to being sexually harassed to accommodate 1 boy?
I hope there are many lawsuits about this. The more, the merrier.
Much appreciation for the brave student, Adaleia Cross, bravely speaking out.
The ACLU is a dead organization in my mind .
Worse than dead. The ACLU is a vampire organization. It needs a stake driven through it's heart.
Yeah, I stopped donating to them.
Thank you, Ms. Gluck, for covering these stories. It seems no one else will.
And until someone is personally touched by this sort of absurd, degrading BS, they just don't believe that it's really happening. Especially traditional liberal women who haven't been captured by the ideology yet because they don't work in the arts, social work, education, or healthcare. It sounds so crazy and conspiratorial, it's just not credible to them. Until it is. At which point it becomes just a matter of 'get used to it', because it's like encountering a tsunami: gender ideology obliterates all reason, destroying once-functional brains and replacing them with propaganda.
I'm way beyond tired of this. I will not engage with any adult who supports this evil and I will shun them. They are not allowed on my property and I will not do business with them (I'm a small farmer). Any politician that has wobbled is dead to me, and party doesn't matter. Any Mengele that has mangled a child needs to go to prison.
This is very concerning, and consistent with the behavior of other young men claiming to be girls to be allowed into girls' sports. The boy in Mass who injured girls in a basketball game, for example, is on record as having been kicked off a rowing team for sexually harassing a teammate:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13266245/KIPP-Academy-Lynn-Massachusetts-transgender-athlete-rowing-harassment-suspended.html
We need some kind of corroboration of her story though, to give it the credence it deserves. Right now it's just her speaking out, and weirdly her parents are not quoted in any reporting despite the fact that she's a 15-year-old minor.
The quotes almost certainly come from the legal documents. Since she is the victim seeking legal redress, it's perfectly normal for the lawsuit documents to record her statements. Her parents were not eyewitnesses to the sexual harassment, so their words would have .minimal legal value, at least in the first phase of court filings. It's not weird at all.
Oof, you're not going to try to argue against the idea of corroboration are you. That's a bad look that we don't need on our side, we're supposed to be the reasonable ones. We're clearly not talking only about legal documents here.
"Not talking about legal documents"??? Here's what the article says: "According to a statement by the 15 year-old girl added as evidence to the lawsuit State of Tennessee, et al v. Cardona, et al (U.S. Secretary of Education)" The statements under discussion in the article were made in a legal filing in a court of law. Your comment makes no sense at all.
Your lack of reading comprehension is not helping.
"Not talking ONLY about legal documents."
That’s right, I’m talking about the reporting, not just legal documents. Reporting includes a lot more than just looking at legal documents. It could include talking to people, or officials, or accessing other records from other sources. As in the example I gave above, for example. And as you know well, I’m sure.
And I'm talking about corroboration. Corroboration is confirming information from a separate source. As I'm sure you know.
And credibility. Corroboration is needed for credibility. As I'm sure you know.
Again, you are not helping here. Not at all. We see this kind of bullsh*t all the time from the other side. We don't need it from our own.
So, hopefully there's corroborating information that will be available in an update. Ms. Gluck and Reduxx are amazing at what they do, I'll bet they find some.
Regarding your statement, "I’m talking about the reporting"... In journalism, there are different kinds of reporting. Most often, journalists report the basic facts of something that just happened. That's what Gluck does with this article. The purpose of this kind of reporting is to quickly announce what is taking place, as it's taking place.
"Talking to people, or officials, or accessing other records from other sources" is in-depth investigative journalism. That's an expensive, time-consuming task. It requires many weeks of labor, often including travel. Usually, big money media companies like the New York Times specialize in those stories. Small-scale news organizations rarely can afford those kinds of projects. How would Gluck undertake that project? Where would she get the funding? Or time?
Very few articles she publishes are in-depth investigative journalism. Understandably, given her limited resources. Why would she have to change her methods into investigative journalism for this particular story? How is she supposed to make that happen?
Finally, how is it "helping" "our side" to make personal attacks instead of debating ideas? What is gained by demeaning someone for a "lack of reading comprehension;" or "bullsh*t."? How is that encouraging the productive exchange of ideas?
Now you're hand-waving to distract from your mistakes, instead of just accepting that you made mistakes and moving on. That doesn't help the movement either.
This isn't about you. This is a common sense observation about the importance of credibility, and how corroborating information on this poor young woman's story will establish it.
Once again, this isn't about you. Please suck up your ego and move on. We are fighting a cult full of out-of-control egos, and you are not helping anything or anyone by losing control of yours.
Back to the actual topic - I am hoping there'll be more information soon, this accusation if corroborated will really help bring the pattern to light of boys bullying their way into girls' sports being sexual bullies also - because of course, as we know, they are most likely young autogynephiles for whom it's all part of their fetish.