I have a friend, a widower, whose wife died a couple of years ago and who is now, after partly recovering from the loss, looking to get back into the social world. The problem is my friend, a hardcore libertarian, lives in a small college town populated mostly by liberals and "progressives," so his forays into the world of dating have resulted in running into a series of what he refers to as "NPR Ladies."
We all know the type, of course. Usually single, usually middle-aged, sometimes childless or with, at most, one offspring, and utterly convinced that anything put forth by PBS or NPR is Holy Writ, not to be questioned - nor will they question those outlets being funded by the taxpayers.
But if you want a great argument for defunding these far-left media outlets, just look at this.
As PBS prepares to defend itself at a Wednesday Congressional hearing, the Monday edition of Amanpour and Company seemed oblivious to the stakes the network faces. Guest host Bianna Golodryga welcomed transgender Nashville city council member Olivia Hill to not only declare there are “at least three genders” but also that people who transition the other way acquire “male privilege,” as evidenced by the fact that nobody questions their presence in sports.
There are three genders - in language, those being male, female, and "neuter" - yes, that's the term used for any word or phrase that is not male or female. And gender, properly used, is a grammatical function, not biological. The biological term is "sex," and humans, as mammals, have two: male (men) and female (women).
If you have an XX sex chromosome pattern, you are a woman. If you have an XY, you are a man. There are exceptions - biology is funny that way - usually involving polysomies of the sex chromosomes, but those are vanishingly rare.
As for the lunatic observation about "male privilege," the only reason nobody questions "transgender male" (women) aren't questioned about being in sports is because none of them are, or at least, not playing on male teams. Why? Because they would lose, catastrophically, to male players in any sport involving strength, speed, or stamina. "Transgender" men can't compete against real men, and that's not "male privilege," that's biology.
These are facts.
It gets worse.
Hill began by urging Democrats to double down, “Well, the biggest thing that we have to do is we have to educate a lot of people. The thought of trans is not anything that's new. It's been around forever. It's just now being start talk about, it's just now kind of coming out into public. And the biggest thing that we have to do is educate people.”
Rolling right along, Hill added, “Because it sounds very intuitive of a man and a woman, and then when you start to throw in the mix that there is at least three genders, because we know that there's intersex, and all the things that change once we start hormones, we take hormone blockers and we take estrogen or testosterone, depending on which way you go, that a lot of things change, and we have got to start educating people.”
By "educate," of course, Hill means "indoctrinate" - why do you think they want these things taught in elementary schools? And "intersex" isn't a thing. You can have surgeries, you can have hormone treatments, but you are still a man or a woman, biologically, and no treatment can change that genetic pattern of XX or XY. Any adult is free to "identify" as male, female, intersex, three-spirit ecosexual, a tuna fish sandwich, or the Saturnian moon Ios, and much good may it do them - but they cannot change biology. Although I have to agree with Hill on one thing - yes, Democrats should double down on this and other, similar lunacies. It will ensure solid Republican majorities for a generation.
There's no reason the taxpayers need to be on the hook for this horse squeeze.
See Also: PBS and NPR CEOs Feel the Heat As Marjorie Taylor Greene Comes Loaded for Bear at DOGE Hearing
Look, PBS and NPR are free to put this kind of stuff out. Let them fund their efforts through subscriptions, through their annoying, never-ending begging for donations, or, like most networks, through advertising. But their flow of taxpayer money - and I don't care if it makes up one percent of their funding or all of it - should be, must be, cut off as soon as the president and Congress can make it happen. The First Amendment grants these people the right to speak freely, after all, but it doesn't guarantee them a taxpayer-funded subsidy to do so.
And here's the kicker:
All the while, Golodryga was uninterested in correcting or challenging Hill’s biologically-challenged statements.
You don't say.
