Liberal state gives ridiculous reason to justify refusal to ban men from women's sports
https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.theblaze.com/fearless/defying-trans-sports-ban-substantive
#TransgenderAthletes
57% of LGBTQ+ people have made major life changes since Donald Trump's election: report
https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/news/lgbtq-life-changes-trump-election
Federal Lawsuit Against Maine: Transgender Athlete Rights
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/24
Jamie Wright is a Los Angeles-based attorney specializing in labor and employment law, focusing on wage and hour litigation and contract disputes. She is a partner at Millennial Government Affairs, providing crisis communication and legal strategies for political and corporate clients. Jamie is also the founder of The Wright Law Firm. Wright discusses the federal lawsuit against Maine over transgender athlete policies. She explains the constitutional stakes, federal-state tensions, and civil rights implications, warning the case could redefine equality standards and influence national policymaking on rights and inclusion. Website: https://jamiewrightesq.com.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you interpret the federal government’s decision to sue Maine over its refusal to ban transgender athletes?
Jamie E. Wright: The federal government’s lawsuit against Maine over its refusal to enforce a ban on transgender athletes is more than a policy dispute. It’s a full-blown constitutional clash. Bottom line, at stake is the balance between civil rights and state power. This isn’t just about who gets to play on which sports team. It is about whether Washington can compel states to adopt a national standard of equality under Title IX, the federal law that bans sex-based discrimination in education.
Jacobsen: What are the constitutional or legal precedents?
Wright: The legal backdrop is complex but important. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can attach conditions to its funding. That was settled in 1987 in South Dakota v. Dole. But there are limits. When those conditions begin to feel less like guidelines and more like mandates, courts have pushed back against federal coercion.
Jacobsen: Governor Janet Mills called this lawsuit federal overreach. Where is the line between federal enforcement and state discretion?
Wright: That is exactly the argument Maine Governor Janet Mills is making. She says the Biden administration is overstepping its authority, using federal education dollars to strong-arm the state into following policies it does not support. If Maine can show that it had no meaningful choice but to comply, it could invoke the anti-commandeering principle laid out in Murphy v. NCAA in 2018. In plain English, the federal government cannot hijack state governments to carry out federal policies.
Jacobsen: What are the likely downstream effects for states with inclusive transgender athlete policies?
Wright: The federal government sees it differently. Officials argue this is not about commandeering at all. It is about making sure states that accept federal funding do not discriminate. It is about defending the rights of transgender students and making sure civil rights law does not depend on your ZIP code.
Jacobsen: If Maine prevails, could this empower defiance of federal directives on civil rights issues?
Wright: The outcome could be seismic. If the courts side with Washington, the ruling could set a new national standard, expanding protections for transgender athletes and forcing other states to align. If Maine wins, it could spark a wave of resistance, with states asserting more control over civil rights enforcement and challenging federal authority at its core.
Jacobsen: What are the legal and ethical implications of using sports as a battleground? How might this lawsuit influence future policymaking?
Wright: Make no mistake…this case is not just legal theory. It is unfolding in locker rooms, on soccer fields, and in high school gyms. On one side are transgender students asking to be seen, included, and treated with respect. On the other are families and advocates raising concerns about fairness in girls’ sports and what inclusion should look like in practice. What is at risk is not only legal precedent, but the lives and experiences of real young people. When these kids become pawns in political battles, everybody loses.
Jacobsen: How should the public understand the stakes of this legal conflict?
Wright: This case could set the tone for the next chapter in America’s long fight over rights and representation. More states are likely to push back. Future administrations may use the same tactics or escalate them. The deeper question remains: Who gets to define what equality means in this country? And will that definition apply to all of us, or only to some?
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jamie.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#CivilRights #ConstitutionalClash #FederalLawsuit #StateAuthority #transgenderAthletes
Transgender runner sues NCAA, New York state university after being barred from tournament
https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/transgender/transgender-runner-sues-ncaa-suny
The woke party’s favorite costume: Moderation
Libya’s Women’s Rights, Security, and Politico-Economics
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/22
Hala Bugaighis, a prominent Libyan researcher, women’s rights activist, and business lawyer discusses her journey from law to civil society after the assassination of her cousin, Salwa Bugaighis. She highlights the challenges Libyan women face, including exclusion from political and economic decision-making, lack of legal protections, and societal repression. Bugaighis criticizes Western contradictions in human rights advocacy, emphasizing how global regressions empower anti-rights movements in Libya. She stresses the need for economic empowerment and resilience in activism.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Hala Bugaighis. She is a prominent Libyan researcher, women’s rights activist, and business lawyer with over 15 years of experience in commercial and petroleum law. She co-founded the Jusoor Center for Studies and Development, a Libyan think tank focused on economic development and advocating for women’s economic inclusion. In 2018, she founded LEAP, Libya’s first business incubator for women.
Hala Bugaighis is also a member of the Libyan Women Peace and Security Advisory Group, working to strengthen women’s roles in peace and security processes. She frequently speaks at local and international events on issues related to economic development and gender.
So, my first question—you have been a lawyer for over 15 years. What initially sparked your interest in women’s economic issues and security? These are broad and complex topics; when someone commits to them, it often becomes a lifelong pursuit, as it has for you.
Hala Bugaighis: Thank you for the question. It is a difficult story to share.
In 2015, I was an established lawyer with a promising career at a law firm. I had excellent prospects, particularly in the commercial and petroleum sectors. However, that same year, Libya plunged into its second civil war and targeted assassinations of women became a terrifying reality. One of the victims was my relative.
She was my first cousin once removed, Salwa Bugaighis, a renowned human rights lawyer and democracy advocate. Salwa had been a leading voice for civil rights, democracy, and women’s empowerment in Libya. Although we were from different generations and did not know each other well, I met her just one month before she was brutally assassinated.
During our conversation, she convinced me to engage in civil society. I told her that I didn’t see the benefit of nonprofit work, that it was a waste of time, and that being a lawyer was fulfilling both professionally and financially. She disagreed strongly. She told me, “What a waste that someone like you, with your intelligence and skills, is not with us in the movement. We need you. We need to talk more.”
We had planned to meet again, and she was determined to persuade me. Tragically, I had an accident on the day we were supposed to meet, and I never saw her again. She returned to Benghazi, where she was brutally assassinated in her home on June 25, 2014, shortly after casting her vote in Libya’s parliamentary elections.
Her murder was a turning point. After her death, there was a chilling silence from women’s voices in Libya. She was the first woman to be assassinated in her own home during the conflict. Her words continued to echo in my mind, and I dreamt of her constantly. That moment changed everything for me. I knew I had met her for a reason. I decided to stop everything, honour her legacy, and dedicate myself fully to civil society.
]And that’s why I gave up my law career and joined the civil society movement. With the money I earned as a lawyer, I invested in Jusoor, my organization, to support its work during difficult times. That was the turning point in my life.
Jacobsen: I mean, that’s—hey, that’s tragic.
Bugaighis: I know.
Jacobsen: And regarding her murder—this happened in her home. Was it carried out by State forces or a domestic attack?
Bugaighis: To this day, we do not know who murdered her. She was on television that day, urging people to go out and vote because it was election day. She encouraged people to cast their ballots and participate in the democratic process.
And then, suddenly, we heard about her murder. There was no open investigation into what happened. The government remained silent. Even today, we cannot accuse anyone. We do not know who did it or why. It remains a mystery.
Jacobsen: Something was pointed out during one of the sessions, which had singing at the end. A South African delegate made a final two-minute comment. I believe it was an Afrikaner.
I think she was from the Sisters of Mercy. She noted that the femicide rate—globally, if not in South Africa alone—had increased significantly, somewhere between 80% and 120%. In other words, it had nearly doubled.
For a public figure like your cousin, that is not the kind of person you would typically target because such a case is more likely to be investigated with significant resources. That makes it even more likely that this was a targeted assassination. Of course, that is speculation—but it is speculation grounded in reasonable considerations.
So, a tragedy jump-started your transition to civil society. Had you heard much about civil society before that conversation or that moment? Several people at UNHQ during CSW69 over the last few days have noted that they didn’t know about “civil society”–the concept–when they were younger. They only got involved more recently.
Bugaighis: Libya is a different case. We didn’t have a civil society for decades.
Jacobsen: You didn’t even have society?
Bugaighis: Exactly. We lived under a dictatorship where everything was designed to serve the leader—the Brother Leader, as we called him.
Jacobsen: The what? The Brother Leader.
Bugaighis: Yes, that’s how we referred to him. It all changed in 2011, with the new system, the uprising, and the fall of Gaddafi. That’s when we started hearing about civil society, grassroots movements, and people regrouping for different causes.
Before that, human rights weren’t even a topic of discussion—you didn’t talk about them. So, yes, I first heard about civil society in 2011.
Jacobsen: You mentioned 2011 as the first time you heard about it. So, okay, let’s establish two points of contact. So, when you first heard about civil society in 2011, and then later, when you founded Jusoor in 2015, how was the concept of human rights viewed in Libya? How would you say perceptions have evolved over the last 14 years, or at least over the past decade?
Bugaighis: In 2011, everybody talked about human rights, democracy, and social justice. These principles were the foundation of why people took to the streets and protested against Gaddafi. It was not just about a regime change but about demanding fundamental freedoms.
These ideals were at the heart of everything—constitutional declarations, political discussions, and civic engagement for about a year. People were motivated and hopeful. This is what we wanted, what we believed in.
But then, after Libya held its first parliamentary elections, everything shifted. Suddenly, the discourse changed. The focus moved away from human rights and democracy, and we started hearing about national security as the new priority.
Jacobsen: That sounds very American. America sounds like Libya. I mean, a lot of these stories…
Bugaighis: This is our history.
Jacobsen: I know, I know. Many of these excuses—I see where this is going—are internationally common is what I’m getting at.
Bugaighis: Absolutely, yes. And in 2015, when I started, there was no discussion of human rights. It was a taboo.
Human rights were considered a Western concept that went against our social traditions. You name it—there was always some excuse.
Today, we even see international actors interfering in Libya, compromising human rights for the sake of so-called “stability.” Human rights and democracy—these principles are being sacrificed to maintain order. This is incredibly dangerous because you cannot build the foundations of stability or a new political process on the wrong principles.
And this is exactly what is happening now.
Human rights defenders are being targeted in Libya. Speaking out about these issues is once again a taboo. It is completely shut down. All the major human rights defenders have left Libya—they have been forced into exile, outcasted, and they live in fear for their lives.
Jacobsen: What does this mean for the status of women in society? And for men, how does this shape how both genders are forced into particular societal roles? People are generally less free.
Bugaighis: That’s true. Even during Gaddafi’s rule, I always say that the issue wasn’t just about women’s rights—it was about human rights as a whole. And unfortunately, this is what is happening again.
Both men and women lack basic freedoms and are forced to self-censor. These rights are now seen as privileges, something people are told they cannot even discuss.
But when it comes to women, it is even more complicated.
Historically and traditionally, women were never meant to be part of public life. Their role has always been confined to the home and small community circles. Women were not welcomed in the public sphere.
So, when women step into public life—when they speak out and/or engage in activism—it’s not just the government or authorities that react. Even society itself sees them as breaking some unwritten moral code.
There is a belief that if a woman puts herself in the public sphere, she deserves to be targeted. She deserves to be silenced—even assassinated—because she left her so-called proper place in the private sphere.
This is why it is so much more complicated for women. Libyan society still refuses to see us as part of public life.
Jacobsen: One thing that often comes up in interviews on these topics is that when an excluded group—women, in this case—steps outside their expected role, they face slurs in their native language. What are some of the common insults directed at women in Libya?
Bugaighis: Let’s start with the most polite ones.
Jacobsen: The most polite.
Bugaighis: Yes. One common phrase in Libya is, “You don’t have men in your house?” or “Where are the men?” They will say, “Where are the men in this household? How come there are women here?”—as if being present in public or speaking out means something is wrong. And then, of course, it escalates to much more immoral and degrading insults. It becomes too much. You can see from this mindset that they assume men should control their women and keep them inside the home.
Jacobsen: Oh yes, that’s exactly right. The implication is that these men have shirked their responsibility.
Bugaighis: The blame isn’t just placed on women—it’s also placed on the men for failing to “control” them.
I ask this question often because I’ve spoken to journalists who, internationally, have endured relentless harassment—not just outright violence but also sustained intimidation across different societies.
Both men and women experience this at some level. But for women, there’s an additional layer—it is typically sexualized in nature. I don’t receive that kind of harassment. I have not experienced those types of threats. That is one very stark gender distinction in the journalistic world. Would it be the same for women’s rights defenders?
Bugaighis: It is. When I briefed the United Nations Security Council, some people immediately took to social media to attack me—not for what I was saying, but for not wearing a headscarf–in Libya. On social media. A month later, a man spoke at the same briefing. The conversation around him was completely different.
Nobody questioned his morality. Nobody attacked him for his appearance. They discussed what he was saying. With me, they didn’t discuss what I was saying at all. They only discussed that I was immoral.
Jacobsen: How have you applied your business law expertise—particularly your experience in organizational founding, administration, and business acumen—to addressing the challenges of women’s security and rights protections in Libya? Where have you seen the greatest progress, and where have you witnessed the most intense pushback? One theme that has come up constantly at CSW69 is that we are in an era of pushback.
Bugaighis: The one thing that worked for me as a business lawyer is knowing how to speak, negotiate, and convince people to support me. I know how to engage different audiences, prepare them, and frame discussions effectively. These negotiation skills, which I have developed over the years, have been crucial in persuading people that I am reliable—that my voice needs to be heard and that my organization needs to be involved in decision-making.
This is very difficult for many people. I don’t know what to say about the pushback—it is a challenging time for everyone. But I am used to it. Regarding Libya, I have always felt like I was walking in a minefield. You must always be careful, study where you step, be mindful of what you say, and know when to pause or shift strategies.
I have to say this: when you look at CSW and other feminist organizations, they are heavily reliant on donors and international aid, which is understandable. But they don’t know how to function without i, which is a problem. We should be an organic movement that can work independently, regardless of funding cycles.
Of course, financial support is important. We need to get paid and have resources to carry out our work effectively. However, many organizations are in shock because they don’t know how to continue without external funding. And it’s not just about the money—it’s also about the strategies. They often don’t know what to do next when funding is cut.
We struggle with this, too—we are not immune. But we have learned when to step back when to reflect, and when to act. We have figured out how to operate in a hostile and unpredictable environment.
We worked inside Libya during the war. In 2019, when hospitals were being bombarded and everything was collapsing, we were still on the ground. Our organization was under attack, yet we continued working. We learned how to function no matter what. It is not an ideal situation, of course—no one should have to work under such dangerous conditions—but it has given us the resilience needed to navigate difficult times.
Jacobsen: In one of your speeches—not necessarily at CSW, but at a Women, Peace, and Security event—you mentioned your second cousin’s story. What was the reaction to that speech? How did the international community respond to you sharing such a personal anecdote on that platform? And what was the reaction on social media?
Bugaighis: Do you mean the reaction from the Libyan or international audiences?
Jacobsen: That’s a good question. It was more probably impactful for the Libyan audience. How was it for you?
Bugaighis: I didn’t expect the Libyan audience to react like they did to my speech. Of course, I had some slurs thrown at me here and there—it was inevitable. But those mostly came from the usual voices deeply entrenched in political games. However, the broader response was overwhelmingly positive, especially from those engaged in Libyan politics and civil society. Many people were writing about it and congratulating me for being brave enough to bring it back into the conversation. This happened in 2015, and now, nobody talks about it anymore. So, for many, it felt like a necessary reminder of something that should never have been forgotten.
International bodies like UNSMIL and others also responded positively. They began discussing it again, and some even adopted elements of my ideas into their discussions and policy recommendations. I recently met with their team, and they are actively integrating these ideas into their approach. That is a sign of real progress.
When I prepared that speech, the usual process occurred—they came to me with suggestions about what they thought should be mentioned. They don’t tell you outright what to say but offer guidance on themes they’d like you to cover.
Jacobsen: It would be nice if you said this…
Bugaighis: Exactly. But I refused. If I was going to speak, it had to be my voice. I didn’t want anyone telling me what should or shouldn’t be included.
Jacobsen: Were any of the recommendations reasonable but just not your voice?
Bugaighis: No, nobody influenced what I said. I worked too hard to get a position where I could speak my mind. I was not going to give that up for anything. Even if a recommendation was reasonable, I needed to own my words.
Jacobsen: These issues don’t exist in isolation—they are all interconnected. Women can’t have security if they don’t have economic independence. And they can’t have true reproductive choices if they don’t have security and financial autonomy. These issues are woven together.
From a Libyan perspective, this is even more complex. Coming from a Canadian context, we have our own regression. However, we also started at a much higher baseline for women’s rights. Of course, there’s still room for improvement—particularly with Indigenous women’s rights, which are a major issue. I attended part of a session on that, and I recognized some of the speakers.
However, my understanding is that the baseline for multiple issues in Libya is quite low. So, in your opinion, which ones are the most critical within the Libyan cultural context?
For example, in Canada, finance is not the biggest barrier—something like 40% of households are led by female breadwinners. The real issue is political representation—and not just symbolic changes like making parliament 50-50, but actually building the infrastructure and pathways for women to reach those positions organically so that change is institutionalized, not just performative.
In Libya, what key pivot points need to be addressed first? What foundational changes are needed?
Bugaighis: What we need is to focus more on economic empowerment. Livelihoods are critically important, especially because of the ongoing conflict. Many women suddenly found themselves as the primary breadwinners—a role they never had before. Previously, even if they had jobs, they were often government jobs with low pay and little flexibility. With the economic crisis and instability, many women must take on multiple jobs to survive.
This is not just about survival—it is also about self-confidence and independence. When women are financially empowered, they regain a sense of power and control over their own lives. This is especially important in North Africa, where historically, women have been strong leaders. But over time, things changed. Conflict, political instability, and societal shifts have eroded that historical strength.
We also need representation across all sectors. Women are completely marginalized in politics, governance, and institutional decision-making. The most shocking example is economic policymaking—zero women are in economic decision-making roles. Can you believe that? None. Zero. Men make every single economic policy and decision that affects the nation exclusively.
Jacobsen: And that’s exactly the problem, right? You were talking earlier about funding dependency, but it goes beyond that. If women aren’t part of the decision-making process, they aren’t in control of resources or economic policies.
Bugaighis: It is not just about funding or budget allocations but about who decides how the nation’s wealth is distributed. Women are completely excluded from these conversations.
Jacobsen: Inheritance laws, for example—things like that?
Bugaighis: We are not even there yet. Another major issue is the lack of legal protections for women. Women cannot move freely in the streets without fear. They cannot drive safely because they face constant harassment. Law enforcement is not supportive—the system is not designed to protect women.
Only recently have policewomen been reinstated into the force. That alone shows you how deep the institutional problems are.
Jacobsen: And then, on top of all of this, some male commentators are pushing extreme narratives—not necessarily in Libya, but in broader Arab media. Sometimes, you see it on MEMRI TV or similar platforms—where some religious figure is giving a sermon, and you hear statements like “Women who dress provocatively are responsible for earthquakes.”
It’s absurd, and it highlights a complete detachment from reality. What we are discussing here—women’s security, economic empowerment, political representation—are real, practical issues. But then, you have these voices promoting archaic and superstitious beliefs that reinforce oppression rather than addressing real-world problems.
Bugaighis: Yes.
Jacobsen: But these impractical, irrelevant distractions influence real-world policies and discussions. It’s as if women are blamed for everything.
Bugaighis: Exactly. Women wearing makeup or showing their hair are supposedly responsible for earthquakes. Yet, menos, men who are looting the country, engaging in corruption, and selling off Libya’s resources to foreign powers for military bases—those men are not blamed.
These actual crimes—stripping Libya of its wealth, destabilizing its economy, and allowing foreign interference—do not cause earthquakes or disasters. But a woman with lipstick or uncovered hair does. It’s absurd.
Jacobsen: It also derails serious conversations. People get emotionally invested in sensationalist nonsense instead of addressing real issues. It happens in North America, too—people get caught up in chasing ghosts, believing in Sasquatch, or thinking the devil is lurking behind every corner.
Bugaighis: Here, too.
Jacobsen: It’s especially prominent in American megachurch culture among evangelical and charismatic pastors.
Bugaighis: Yeah.
Jacobsen: You see these televangelists on American TV—people fainting, convulsing, collapsing on the ground in mass hysteria.
Bugaighis: Yes, having a little epilepsy, as we say.
Jacobsen: And meanwhile, people buy into the witch hunts.
Bugaighis: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: These prosperity gospel preachers will tell people with diabetes, heart disease, or vision problems to throw their medication or glasses on stage because they are “healed by faith.”
Bugaighis: Yes, yes, yes.
Jacobsen: But none of this has anything to do with practical realities. People desperate for hope are exploited. Just like in economics—where there are legitimate grievances, but instead of fixing them, those frustrations get redirected toward false enemies and illegitimate targets.
Other groups have also been delegitimized in the political economy. What you’re describing in Libya isn’t the same as in North America—different culture and historical context’s roots, but the issue feels very familiar. It’s just that you’re starting from a lower cliff, so to speak—your baseline for these struggles is different. Still, the patterns of oppression and manipulation are similar.
Bugaighis: It is even more bizarre that this still happens today. That’s what makes it more surreal. This might have happened in North America in the 1940s or 1950s, maybe earlier.
Jacobsen: Sure, yeah.
Bugaighis: Even in the 1970s, I remember similar narratives.
Jacobsen: Probably more so in New York back then. But New York and California have always been kind of holdouts—places where things change a little faster.
Bugaighis: This mentality is still deeply embedded in many societies. It remains alive in people’s minds, and with modern tools like social media, it has become even easier to target people who challenge these ideas.
Jacobsen: Absolutely. Many of these people were never politically engaged, but now they have been politically energized. That’s why we are seeing these issues resurface so forcefully today.
This underscores one of the UN’s foundational premises—that despite our geographical and cultural differences, many of our experiences are only superficially different. Structurally, they are very much the same.
Bugaighis: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: Who are the women figures in Libya making significant inroads toward women’s equality?
Bugaighis: Libyan women are doing important work. Are you asking about political figures or activists?
Jacobsen: Political figures. Because honestly, people can have parades, protests, bumper stickers, lapel pins, blog posts, interviews—even small rallies. But at the end of the day, what truly changes things are economics and politics. Those forces make human rights and women’s equality a reality.
Bugaighis: We have a congresswoman, Rabia Abouraz. She is doing well. She is in parliament and the head of the Sustainable Development Committee. She has advocated for climate change policies, women’s rights, and decentralization. She is one of the best women leaders in Libya right now. I really respect her. Honestly, she’s the only one I can think of now.
Jacobsen: How do Libyans view the West, particularly when Western nations contradict their principles? The West often preaches universalist values but fails to uphold them in practice at times. We could go down a long laundry list of contradictions, naturally.
But when those contradictions become flagrant, like under the current American administration, how are they perceived in Libya? How do the media report on them?
Bugaighis: Although this is happening thousands of miles away from Libya, Libyans notice it immediately. They see Americans questioning their country’s principles and think, “Look, even the Americans are saying the same things we’ve been saying.”
To them, it validates their perspective. They see it as proof that the West is finally realizing its contradictions.
But more dangerously, it empowers those who oppose human rights in Libya. When the so-called leaders of the free world engage in anti-democratic behavior, it reinforces the belief that Libya is on the right track—that their own restrictions and regressions are justified. They see it as proof that the West is finally waking up to reality, which, in their minds, means rolling back human rights and social progress.
Jacobsen: Women in public life. Women in private life. Lesbians, gays, bisexuals…
Bugaighis: That topic does not exist in Libya. It is not allowed to be discussed.
Jacobsen: They exist. They are there—it’s just that nobody talks about it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
I'd like to use my pinned post to shoot the bird to transphobes
Study Ordered by Utah Republicans Finds Gender-Affirming Care Benefits Trans Youth
them.us/story/utah-gender-affi…
Transgender Athletes Could Be At A Physical Disadvantage, New Research Shows
forbes.com/sites/lindseyedarvi…
#transgender #transgenderAthletes #GenderAffirmingCare #TransYouth #IoC #Utah #LGBTQ
I'd like to use my pinned post to shoot the bird to transphobes
Study Ordered by Utah Republicans Finds Gender-Affirming Care Benefits Trans Youth
https://www.them.us/story/utah-gender-affirming-care-ban-republican-study
Transgender Athletes Could Be At A Physical Disadvantage, New Research Shows
#transgender #transgenderAthletes #GenderAffirmingCare TransYouth
Trump Sues California: Transgender Athletes in Women's Sports
#California #lawsuit #TransgenderAthletes #Trumpadministration #womenssports
https://blazetrends.com/trump-sues-california-transgender-athletes-in-womens-sports/?fsp_sid=64075
FUCK YEAH!!! #Maine Senate rejects sports ban, sounding death knell for #AntiTrans bills this session
Eesha Pendharkar
Tue, June 17, 2025
"All legislation seeking to roll back rights for #Transgender people in Maine has now failed after the majority of the Senate on Monday rejected a bill that would have banned #TransgenderGirls from participating in girls sports.
"That means that despite pressure from President Donald #Trump’s administration, Maine will continue to uphold the right for trans students to participate in sports that align with their gender identity.
"The state’s policies have come under scrutiny over the past few months, with the Department of Justice launching a lawsuit against the state for allegedly violating federal anti-discrimination protections in addition to repeated threats from several agencies to cut federal funding.
"Last week, House lawmakers advanced LD 233, which sought to ban trans girls from playing on girls’ teams. It was the only bill out of eight anti-trans measures that a majority of lawmakers in the lower chamber supported, with four Democrats joining with Republicans to advance the bill. During the floor debate, many argued that the bill was not intended to punish trans students, but to bring fairness to athletics and preserve girls’ spaces.
"However, on Monday, the Senate voted 21-13 to reject that bill as well as other measures not supported by the House, including bills aiming to ban trans students from bathrooms, locker rooms (LD 868) and trans people from single-sex shelters (LD 1337).
"Later in the evening, both the House and Senate voted to insist on their respective positions, effectively killing the measure, since the chambers could not agree."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maine-senate-rejects-sports-ban-165747159.html
#MaineResists #MainePride #TransgenderAthletes #ProtectTransYouth #ProtectTransKids #TransRights #TrumpIsAFascist #SeeYouInCourt #GLBTQNews #MainePol #USPol #TransRightsAreHumanRights
#Maine Senate blocks last #Transgender sports bill :flag_transgender: 🌲
Randy Billings, Portland Press Herald, Maine
Mon, June 16, 2025 at 6:47 PM EDT
Jun. 16—AUGUSTA — "The Maine Senate on Monday blocked a bill advanced by the lower chamber last week that sought to prevent transgender girls from competing in girls sports.
"The 21-13 vote means the bill, sponsored by Rep. Richard Campbell, R-Orrington, and approved 73-70 by the House of Representatives on Friday, will likely die between the chambers.
"LD 233 was one of eight bills seeking to roll back transgender rights this session — a subject that took on a life of its own after President Donald Trump issued an executive order entitled, 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports,' and confronted Gov. Janet Mills at a White House event.
[...]
"Sen. Rick Bennett of Oxford was the lone Republican to vote against [LD 233] there.
"In an emotional floor speech last week, Bennett said he would oppose all of the anti-transgender bills in part after having a conversation with his daughter, describing her as 'a fierce and accomplished athlete' who was saddened by the debate.
" 'I, too, feel sadness that these bills are before us,' Bennett said. 'Sadness that in a moment when we could be lifting up young people, we are entertaining proposals that single some of them out, setting them apart as 'other.' I'm saddened by the growing tendency to turn away from the better angels of our nature. Saddened by the pull toward a culture of fear, the politics of division, the hardening of silos and the temptation to stigmatize those who are different.'
"The Senate also voted Monday to kill LD 868, a bill sponsored by Rep. Elizabeth Caruso, R-Caratunk, that would have prohibited transgender athletes from participating in school sports consistent with their gender identity, while allowing them to play on co-ed teams."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maine-senate-blocks-last-transgender-224700824.html
#MaineResists #TransRights #ProtectTransYouth #TransgenderAthletes #TransRightsAreHumanRights
2nd-Place Runner in High School Race Rips #Maine #GOP Lawmaker for Attacking Trans Winner
Brett Wilkins, May 15, 2025
"A high school runner in Maine who finished second to a transgender competitor at a recent track meet said this week that a Republican state lawmaker's 'hateful' crusade targeting trans athletes—not the fact that she had to compete against one—dampened her sporting joy.
Anelise Feldman, a freshman at Yarmouth High School in southern Maine, finished second to Soren Stark-Chessa, a multisport standout at rival North Yarmouth Academy, at a May 2 intramural meet.
"' I ran the fastest 1,600-meter race I have ever run in middle school or high school track and earned varsity status by my school's standards,' Feldman wrote in a letter to The Portland Press Herald published Wednesday. 'I am extremely proud of the effort I put into the race and the time that I achieved. The fact that someone else finished in front of me didn't diminish the happiness I felt after finishing that race.'
"Feldman's letter was prompted by State Rep. #LaurelLibby's (R-90) comments during a Fox News interview earlier this month in which the lawmaker, while not naming Stark-Chessa, referred to her accomplishments and accused transgender athletes of 'pushing many, many of our young women out of the way in their ascent to the podium.'
Feldman stressed: "I don't feel like first place was taken from me. Instead, I feel like a happy day was turned ugly by a bully who is using children to make political points."
" 'We are all just kids trying to make our way through high school,' she added. 'Participating in sports is the highlight of high school for some kids. No one was harmed by Soren's participation in the girls' track meet, but we are all harmed by the hateful rhetoric of bullies, like Rep. Libby, who want to take sports away from some kids just because of who they are.' "
https://www.commondreams.org/news/transgender-student-athletes-maine
#MaineResists #USPol #ProtectTransKids #TransgenderAthletes #TransRightsAreHumanRights
NBA legend Charles Barkley shares views out on transgender athletes debate https://www.rawchili.com/nba/20667/ #Basketball #CharlesBarkley #NBA #Sports #transgender #TransgenderAthletes
VICTORY! #JanetMills said "We'll see you in court," and #Trump backed down!
Trump administration settles with #Maine over #funding freeze after dispute over #TransgenderAthletes
In response, the state will drop its lawsuit that had been filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
May 2, 2025
#MaineResists #Resistance #ResistAuthoritarianism #ProtectTransKids #MainePol #USPol #Resist
#Trump upends #DOJ's #CivilRightsDivision, sparking 'bloodbath' in senior ranks
Trump's hand-picked head of the division has outlined priorities that are dramatically at odds with the way past administrations have enforced #CivilRights law.
April 23, 2025, 7:29 PM EDT
By Ken Dilanian
Excerpt: "Founded in 1957 after the passage of the 20th century’s first major civil rights legislation, the Civil Rights Division has always been subject to the policy preferences of the president, and enforcement priorities tend to differ in Republican and Democratic administrations. But there is no precedent for the changes that have been made over the last three months, which are far more consequential than anything that occurred in Trump’s first term, current and former officials say.
" 'I was there almost 18 years, and what’s happening now is basically the opposite of what we’ve been doing,' said a veteran lawyer who recently left the department. 'In the first Trump administration, they engaged with us as attorneys. The political appointees were normal lawyers. Sometimes we persuaded them and sometimes they disagreed, but there was always a conversation about why and what the law required. That is not happening.'
"In the Biden administration, the Civil Rights Division convicted 180 police officers of violating people’s civil rights, according to Justice Department records. It also prosecuted a variety of high-profile hate crimes cases, including one against the Texas man who targeted Mexicans when he killed 23 people at a Walmart in El Paso and the Pennsylvania man who killed 11 congregants at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh.
"Among the many settlements over racial discrimination, the division secured reforms at Hawkins County Schools in Tennessee, where an investigation found that incidents of harassment — including a mock 'slave auction' to sell Black students to their white counterparts and a 'monkey of the month' campaign to ridicule Black students — created a racially hostile environment. On voting rights, the division successfully challenged an Arizona law requiring people registering to vote to list their birthplaces and provide proof of citizenship.
"Current and former employees say many of those enforcement actions are unimaginable under the new regime.
" 'They are withdrawing everything we’ve done and taking the opposite side on voting rights, for example,' said a recently departed Civil Division lawyer. 'This is not ‘Oh, we want to do more religion cases’ or ‘We don’t want to do creative redlining cases.’ This is abandoning everything that we have done in the past. They are actively anti-civil rights. This didn’t happen in Trump 1.'
"Dhillon took office April 7, but the changes had already been underway. So far the Civil Rights Division has suspended investigations of police abuse and launched probes into whether Los Angeles is violating people’s gun rights and whether American #universities are tolerating antisemitism. The division was also involved in the lawsuit filed last week accusing the state of #Maine of violating the law by allowing #TransgenderAthletes to participate on women’s sports teams."
#TrumpIsABully #TrumpIsARacist #Fascism #AmeriKKKa #USPol
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #TrumpIsAWhiteSupremacist #BlackLivesMatter
This evening...
Hubby: "Let's watch the local news."
[News reports about transgender athletes and Title IX and schools]
Me: "F*ck you! Studies of two people are not studies! READ THE SCIENCE!!!"
Hubby: "Let's watch something else.
Me: "Sorry. But I can't help it! Grrrrr...."
#TransgenderAthletes #TransgenderRights #TrumpIsABully #TransgenderRightsAreHumanRights
MUSK-Trump MALADMINISTRATION IS SHORT OF CASH FOR SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES ... BUT
THEY HAVE ALL THE MONEY IT TAKES TO FIGHT ONE STATE ALLOWING TRANSGENDER ATHLETES IN WOMEN'S SPORTS
: #democrats #lgbtq #transathletes #transgenderathletes #uspol #uspolitics :
#Maine governor criticizes #Trump administration for freezing funds amid #transgender athlete dispute: ‘It’s not rational’
By Alyssa Vega Globe Staff,Updated April 14, 2025
"Maine #GovernorJanetMills criticized the Trump administration on Monday just days after it moved to cut all federal #education funding to the state. The move came in response to Maine’s refusal to enforce the administration’s directive to ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports.
In an interview on MSNBC’s 'Morning Joe' Monday, Mills said the state received a series of letters from federal agencies, culminating in an April 2 letter from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, which the Maine governor described as 'appalling' in tone and substance. Mills said the next day Rollins threatened to pull all education funding to the state.
" 'Because there are maybe two — at most — two transgender athletes competing in Maine schools right now, they decided to shut off funding for our school nutrition program, the school lunch program entirely, on which 172,000 Maine school #children rely for their school meals. That didn’t make any sense,' Mills said. "
Archived version:
https://archive.ph/NRfNV
#USPol #TrumpHatesChildren #TrumpIsABully #MadKingTrump #JanetMills #GovernorMills #TransgenderAthletes #TransAthletes #ProtectTransYouth #SeeYouInCourt #MaineResists #TransErasure #TransgenderRights #TransgenderRightsAreHumanRights
In high school, I could easily beat the boys at 50 and 100 yard dashes (and could dunk way more baskets than most of them -- 7 in a row from the line one time). But I was not allowed to compete directly with them, or play on the boys' basketball team. The boys had no problem with it -- but the school did. Some of us are born with subtle differences in chromosomes, hormones, etc., and not-so-subtle differences in weight, skills, etc. Maybe we should focus on muscle mass, weight, skill, etc., like there is with boxing and other sports. In martial arts class (which I became a brown belt in a class full of boys), we competed by skill and size -- not by gender. Just saying...
#TransAthletes #TransgenderAthletes #TransgenderRights #PeopleArePeople #TransgenderRightsAreHumanRights
Client Info
Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.07
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst