By: Ken Willette – 7/23
The followers of Woke World have experienced major setbacks lately, which demonstrate the limits of their influence in 2023 mainstream America. Anheuser-Busch (AB), Disney and Target have collectively lost almost $100 billion in revenue over woke antics since 2022.
The battles between Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Disney executives are well-documented. Target received massive backlash over its transgender swimwear products aimed at toddlers and preschoolers, with an ‘extra crotch coverage’ on bathing suits. And AB’s domestic sales of Bud Light and related brands continue to nosedive with no end in sight, due to its promotion of a Tik Tok star who identifies as a woman but remains exclusively a biological male.
We used to be able to conduct civil dialogue and discourse in the public arena. I have so many questions that I don’t think have been fully vetted by the Woke community, which is mainly why they have experienced such an adverse reaction on multiple fronts. They simply cannot fathom why their agenda is opposed in the first place. But I will do my best to raise some legal and societal ramifications that I hope will thoughtfully engage the readership here.
One of the most puzzling mysteries that has confounded me is the willingness of some in society to allow biological males, who self-identify as female, to compete in women’s sports. Title IX was landmark legislation that created a level playing for women in sports and activities. It strictly prohibited discrimination based on sex, created safe harbor protections for female athletes and ensured an influx of funding for programs under the oversight of federal law.
In turn, female sports have expanded in size and allowed millions of women a positive and enriching outlet for excellence.
How is allowing a biological male to participate in female competitions not a violation of Title IX? They can enter the same locker rooms and changing areas as biological females. How is that not an invasion of privacy? Isn’t that act alone a potential case of sexual harassment?
That biological male, even under hormone-replacement therapy, will still have the same equipment and exhibit an unfair advantage in many cases. How about males who operate strictly based on identity alone?
Shouldn’t they be allowed to compete if they promise to start transitioning? Who is going to enforce this Pandora’s Box and how can we possibly ensure privacy in changing rooms and showers—not only on campuses, but public schools, private-sector gyms, and woman only establishments?
And how about those self-identifying as female? Are they now a protected class?
There is no indication whatsoever that Tik Tok star, and alleged transgender Dylan Mulvaney, has gone through any stage of gender reassignment surgery or hormone-replacement therapy yet purports to be going through a year of womanhood.
But how can Dylan be classified as transgender when there is absolutely no transitioning going on?
At least I can somewhat understand someone like Bruce Jenner, who personally felt trapped in a male’s body and could not take it anymore. Caitlyn Jenner went through the full gender reassignment surgery. But Dylan has not, but I am supposed to use pronouns She/Her with him?
WTH?
And not only that, but Bud Light fans were also ridiculed as being out of touch and fratty by the VP of Marketing, which is a first for me— directly insulting most drinkers while promoting a false fairy tale of Dylan’s blossoming womanhood. What brilliance? And still no official apology from AB.
The woke crowd used to be focused on the hallmarks of orientation and equality, as opposed to recruitment and advocacy geared to young children. Many were highly critical of the term sexual preference because a person was born and oriented toward GLBTQ acceptance.
So, if we, as today’s society, should naturally welcome someone who identifies as GLBTQ, why are we showcasing sexual orientation and gender identity issues in grades kindergarten through 3? In the same vein that many people condemn gay conversion therapy sponsored by some churches, which I agree is psychologically harmful, then why are we condoning parents who thrust identity and gender issues upon their children, some of which may be irreversible?
If there is a natural and genetic progression of one’s development, why apply artificial, man-made settings?
Just because a parent is gay, doesn’t necessarily make the child gay, and vice-versa. And believe me, I have no problem with age-appropriate books on GLBTQ and anti-bullying campaigns. And parents should be taught to instruct their kids on stranger danger.
The Florida Governor’s main mission was to remove that mindset of direct advocacy from lower elementary schools.
But supposedly he banned the word gay across Florida, according to critics, which is why I blame most media outlets for deliberating fueling the flames of division across the nation. Just take time to read the actual law!
And keeping the same subject in mind, what is the relevancy of drag queens in children’s story time? When did the leap occur from the historically adult oriented nature of drag queen performances at cabarets and nightclubs to children’s events anyway? Why branch out to children other than to engage in advocacy and promotion?
I understand the historical importance of these clubs in giving GLBTQ members a sense of defiance, solidarity, and togetherness in a sometimes hostile and uninviting world.
But adult themes should not be imposed upon impressionable children, regardless of one’s sexual orientation. I would never entertain a stripper going to story time either.
Can we restore some sensible boundaries, or will Woke World continue to alienate much of the population? ◊