Essay Contest for PA Students
Plus more PA news
The correct answer is, of course, e. None of your business.
From The TERF Report, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, whose jurisdiction is Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the US Virgin Islands. As part of its civics program, the Third Circuit is having an essay contest for 5th and 6th graders. The topic is:
“Does the United States Constitution address the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence? If so, explain how.”
Kara Dansky wrote:
However, I can think of a reason why elementary school students would want to submit essays to the Third Circuit explaining why the Constitution does address the question of whether students have a right to privacy.
In 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case called Doe v. Boyertown that it’s perfectly fine for schools to allow students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their purported “gender identities” instead of their sex. It essentially said that allowing students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with “gender identities” does not violate the privacy rights of students of the opposite sex. During oral arguments in that case, one judge stated on the record that it was inappropriate for lawyers to use the phrase “opposite sex” because he found that phrase to be confusing.
I think it would be quite fun if elementary school students submitted essays to the Third Circuit explaining that regardless of whether or not the Constitution addresses the 27 grievances against King George III listed in the Declaration of Independence, it does address students’ right to privacy and why the court got it wrong in Doe v. Boyertown. I wrote about Boyertown in more detail last summer (the content is behind the paywall). Information about how to submit essays is available in the links provided.
Essays must be received by March 31, 2026. More information, including complete contest rules, can be found here.
Please tell the educators and kids you know to enter. Maybe we can have many sex-realist essays! That’ll teach the Court.
Here is some brief news from Our Fair Commonwealth.
AG Sunday leads letter to xAI regarding Grok’s creation of sexual content.
The AG’s office said that Grok has made this content publicly available to users at the click of a button, which in turn fuels harassment and exploitation. Victims have no way of stopping such postings.
Grok’s new feature allows X users to prompt the chatbot to “undress” women and children in photos and put them in sexualized contexts or situations without consent. The AG’s office said that xAI has marketed Grok’s content generation as a selling point.
A CBS news report says this about Grok:
Analysts from the U.K.-based group the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) detected a record 3,440 AI videos of child sexual abuse last year, up from just 13 videos the year prior, a 26,362% increase. Of the AI videos they tracked, over half meet the description of what’s known IWF refers to as “category A,” a classification that can include the most graphic imagery and torture.
…
The report comes amid a backlash against Grok, an AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk's company xAI, after it allowed users to generate sexually explicit images of women and minors. In a December analysis, Copyleaks, a plagiarism and AI content-detection tool, estimated the chatbot was creating "roughly one nonconsensual sexualized image per minute."
Some bloggers have urged users to stop using Xitter and other Musk companies and products.
Pa. woman fired for asking intimate question about trans coworker loses benefits appeal.
[Ms] Williams was an Imaging Production Specialist at Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc. in 2023 when she asked a coworker what type of genitalia a trans coworker had.
Her coworker reported the comment, and in a written statement provided to Iron Mountain before her firing, Williams said “I asked (a coworker) a question about someone’s private parts.”
Williams told Iron Mountain she didn’t understand why she couldn’t ask what private parts someone has. She said she was uncomfortable that her transgender [a TIM] coworker used the same bathroom as she. She was fired a day after the incident.
This is what happens when men are allowed to use women’s facilities. Of course Ms Williams was “uncomfortable” with a man in a women’s restroom. I hope she can find an attorney or organization to sue her company over their misogynist policy.
Finally, here is an excellent post about how some social movements, especially trantifa, use language to obfuscate:
When psychological jargon replaces descriptions of reality, it erodes our ability to draw legal distinctions, and the loss of legal rights soon follows. The recent Supreme Court cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. offer a clear illustration.
Stated in ordinary language, the question before the Court is simple: Should the law recognize biological sex when allocating sex-based protections? Stripped of psychological jargon, the question itself is nonsensical. Sex-based protections that do not recognize sex as a biological category are incoherent. But once the issue is reframed in “gender” jargon, the cases appear to the uninformed as matters of discrimination and exclusion.
Today’s lagniappe is from The Harrisburg Telegraph, January 9, 1930. Damn right, sister!
