Chapter 9 and the Definition of "Female"

I'm still trying to figure out what to say about Chapter 9 of Project 2025. Everytime I try to write something, I get lost in my own emotions and fizzle into frustration. So I'll share the quotes and throw some words out to see what sticks.

I am a 41 year old woman who:

• was adopted and raised by her grandparents who were born in the 1930s; and
• who was a church-going, God-fearing teenager in the height of "Purity Culture" in the 1990s.

I was made painfully aware of what females were and what femininity was "supposed to be". I knew the rules of the game, how to follow them, and how to score the points.

What I didn't know was I was playing Whose Line Is It Anyway, where everything is made up  and the points don't matter. 

I am just now learning how to define myself and to be satisfied with that definition. That I can feel as feminine in a dress and heels as I can in a flannel shirt and work boots and I am a woman in both scenarios because that is who I am. That despite the circumstances that kept me from becoming a mother, I am still a contributing member to society and have a stake in the future of my country.  

It is not "the Left" who has misused the definition of woman. It is "the Right" who has created a limited definition of what a woman "should be" in their mind and imposed that definition upon anyone with the label of "female". And then, when we fall short of your expectations, you punish us for it. 

No one gets to define who you are. You get one life. One. Find your own damn definition because who you are matters. Society is more than women who beget children. Society is all people and viewpoints and emotion and care and compassion and concern and friendship and joy and sorrow and culture and tolerance and education and empathy.

Project 2025, Chapter 9, Pages 258-59

Refocusing Gender Equality on Women, Children, and Families. Instead of protecting women's and children's unalienable human rights and propelling their ability to thrive in society, past Democrat Administrations have nearly erased what females are and what femininity is through "gender" policies and practices. For instance, these Administrations have diluted USAID’s focus on assisting vulnerable women, children, and families around the globe by adding protections for and ideological advocacy on behalf of progressive special-interest groups. USAID now aggressively promotes abortion on demand under the guise of “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights,” “gender equality,” and “women’s empowerment” and advocates for those who claim minority status or vulnerability.

Families are the basic unit of and foundation for a thriving society. Without women, there are no children, and society cannot continue. As evidenced by the confirmation testimony of now-Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the progressive Left has so misused and altered the definition of what a “woman” is that one of our U.S. Supreme Court Justices was unable to delineate clearly the fundamental biological and sexual traits that define the group of which she is a part. USAID cannot advocate for and protect women when they have been erased globally along with the values and traditional structures that have supported them. 

The next conservative Administration should rename the USAID Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (GEWE) as the USAID Office of Women, Children, and Families; refocus and realign resources that currently support programs in GEWE to the Office of Women, Children, and Families; redesignate the Senior Gender Coordinator as an unapologetically pro-life politically appointed Senior Coordinator of the Office of Women, Children, and Families; and eliminate the “more than 180 gender advisors and points of contact…embedded in Missions and Operating Units throughout the Agency.”

In addition, the next conservative Administration should rescind President Biden’s 2022 Gender Policy and refocus it on Women, Children, and Families and revise the agency’s regulation on “Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle.”10 It should remove all references, examples, definitions, photos, and language on USAID websites, in agency publications and policies, and in all agency contracts and grants that include the following terms: “gender,” “gender equality,” “gender equity,” “gender diverse individuals,” “gender aware,” “gender sensitive,” etc. It should also remove references to “abortion,” “reproductive health,” and “sexual and reproductive rights” and controversial sexual education materials.

In the past, the word “gender” was a polite alternative to the word “sex” or term “biological sex.” The Left has commandeered the term “gender,” which used to mean either “male” or “female,” to include a spectrum of others who are seeking to alter biological and societal sexual norms. The promotion of gender radicalism is anathema to the traditional norms of many societies where USAID works, causes resentment by tying lifesaving assistance to rejecting the aid recipient’s own firmly held fundamental values regarding sexuality, and produces unnecessary consternation and confusion among and even outright bias against men. 

Hurricanes and Disasters and FEMA - Oh My!

First it was Helene. Then came Milton. The hurricanes that have affected our country and our citizens have been devastating and front-of-mind for a lot of people recently. I can't begin to fathom what these people are going through, and I readily admit that I know very little about the rebuilding process. I've been trying to do some high-level research to educate myself on the agencies at play, as well as what Project 2025 lays out as the future plan for the next conservative president in regards to these agencies.

There's a lot of ground to cover here, and I won't be able to work through it all in the short term. So I'll do what I can and provide additional resources for further education and discussion.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Who They Are: 
The "NOAA is an agency that enriches life through science. [Their] reach goes from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean floor as [they] work to keep the public informed of the changing environment around them." Most of us are at least somewhat familiar with NOAA's products and services - "from daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings, and climate monitoring to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting Marine commerce. 
(Source: https://www.noaa.gov/about-our-agency) 

What Project 2025 Proposes: 
The NOAA that currently consists of six main offices should be "broken up and downsized". The author of this chapter on the Department of Commerce, Thomas F. Gilman, further states that the NOAA is currently "a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity. This industry's mission emphasis on prediction and management seems designed around the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable." Gilman proposes that the current services provided by the NOAA "could be provided commercially, likely at lower cost and high quality".
(Source: Project 2025, page 674-75)

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Who They Are:
FEMA's mission is to help people "before, during and after disasters". Before disasters, they seek to raise risk awareness, educate in risk reduction options, and help take preventative actions. During disaster, they alert, warn, and message, as well as coordinate the Federal response including managing resources. After disasters, they coordinate Federal recovery measures, provide resources, and apply their knowledge and insight to future risk. These core values are outlined in their capstone doctrine, "We Are FEMA" or "Publication One (Pub 1)" which helps them define their role and give them direction.
(Source: links provided within paragraph)

What Project 2025 Proposes:
FEMA reform "requires a greater emphasis on federalism and state and local preparedness", and emergency spending should shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the Federal government. Due to the rise of inflation, FEMA should also raise the per capita threshold which is the "key indicator for disaster declaration" or as an alternate they could apply a deductible to "accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities." Also, FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program should be "wound down" and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program".
(Source: Project 2025, pages 135, 153-54)

My Take-Away

It's my understanding that what's being proposed is a breaking down of federal agencies meant to educate, empower, and assist our citizens at all stages (or potential stages) of a large-scale disaster. In their place, Project 2025 proposes moving to an all-too-familiar and (in my opinion, not at all user-friendly) private insurance system. The Federal government would no longer be in the "business" of natural sciences, climate research, weather forecasting, disaster restoration efforts, or messaging and education in disaster risk prevention. Instead, states and localities would be responsible for all of these "services" on their own, looking to private organizations to fill in the gaps left behind should the next conservative president choose to enact this Project 2025 policy proposal.

Additional Sources and Further Reading:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/10/09/how-would-project-2025-affect-hurricane-forecasts-and-relief-efforts-heres-what-to-know/

Project 2025 and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

I've been continuing my read-through of Project 2025, "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise". I've made a lot of highlights in my Kindle, but I haven't had the energy to make a lot of posts. It's a lot to digest, but it's also given me first-hand knowledge to have those tough conversations. I'm going back through my highlights now, and I'll continue sharing.

The chapter about "Media Agencies: Corporation for Public Broadcasting" really hit home. Having grown up for a portion of my childhood without cable television, public broadcast was what we had. Sesame Street, Mister Roger's Neighborhood, and Bob Ross' The Joy of Painting were my favorites as a kid. They taught me lessons that my mother was already trying to teach me, helping me to see the world as a place to learn, to grow, and to make it beautiful through happy little accidents.

The quote below illustrates the Conservative Promise's viewpoint of PBS and other noncommercial education stations, as well as provides a plan for the future:

"Stripping public funding would, of course, mean that NPR, PBS, Pacifica Radio, and the other leftist broadcasters would be shorn of the presumption that they act in the public interest and receive the privileges that often accompany so acting. They should no longer, for example, be qualified as noncommercial education stations (NCE stations), which they clearly no longer are. NPR, Pacifica, and the other radio ventures have zero claim on an education function (the original purpose for which they were created by President Johnson), and the percentage of on-air programming that PBS devotes to educational endeavors such as "Sesame Street" (programs that are themselves biased to the Left) is small." (Source: Project 2025, page 247)

Researching the Claim of "Alleged" 2016 Election Interference

Today's Project 2025 tidbit from page 155 regarding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), more specifically the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

"Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA's counter-mis/disinformation efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth. CISA began this work because of the alleged Russian misinformation in the 2016 election, which in fact turned out to be a Clinton campaign 'dirty trick'." (Source: Project 2025, page 155)

Interesting that author Ken Cuccinelli considers the 2016 election interference to be "alleged". I went out to the internet to see if I could find any documents that would support the fact that the election interference did happen, and I found a couple of sources I believe to be reliable.

The FBI have a wanted poster on their website which reads:

WANTED BY THE FBI
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 U.S. ELECTIONS

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES; FALSE REGISTRATION OF A DOMAIN NAME; AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MONEY LAUNDERING
(Source: https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/russian-interference-in-2016-u-s-elections)

Another source which recently became available was Special Counsel Jack Smith's Newly Unsealed Evidence for Case No. 23-cr-257 (TSC), The United States of America v. Donald J. Trump (Defendant). I was able to make it about 24 pages into the document before my head started to pound a bit, so I haven't read it in its entirety. But the evidence provided seems to prove that this was much more than a "dirty trick" of a rival campaign. (Source: Unsealed Evidence for Case No. 23-cr-257 (TSC))

I also believe that if you claim that the federal government cannot be the "arbiter of truth", the your party's chosen candidate should not spend his time telling the American people what's fake news or fake data or fake anything because - according to Project 2025 - that's not part of his job.