Anti-Natalists At NYT Want You To Think IVF Is The Only Way To Have A Career
Establishing a norm of egg freezing and IVF will further entrench the view that marriage is a capstone in life, rather than a foundation.Establishing a norm of egg freezing and IVF will further entrench the view that marriage is a capstone in life, rather than a foundation.Welcome To The Future, Where AI Grandma Raises The Kid You Bought From The Baby Bank
Fertility tech solved the 'problem' of your body's physical limitations. Now, a new app has solved that of your mother's.Most Women Are On Crazy Pills, And It’s Bad For Everyone
An entire generation of women is lost amidst engineered anxiety, chasing hollow independence while forsaking the proven anchors of marriage, family, and selfless purpose.Sorry, Ladies, Radical Politicians Such As Mamdani Are No Substitute For A Husband
The young feminists who helped elect Zohran Mamdani would rather have apartments and pets than houses and families.Lowering the bar doesn’t lift women up
For years, Americans have been told a comforting lie: Anyone can do anything, be anything, and succeed at anything, regardless of limits or differences. But ideological fantasies collapse on the battlefield, where physics, endurance, and human limits matter more than slogans.
After years of social experimentation, the military is rediscovering a basic truth: Equality of opportunity makes the force stronger, while equality of outcome weakens it. The return to gender-neutral standards announced last month by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth marks a long-overdue step toward restoring merit, discipline, and respect across the ranks.
Pretending that men and women have identical physical capabilities doesn’t empower women; it endangers them.
For most of our history, the armed forces held one clear principle: Anyone, male or female, could serve in any position if they met the same standard. The promise was simple and fair — the uniform didn’t care about sex or gender, only performance.
That began to change in 2015, when the Army opened all-male combat units to women. At the time, the Pentagon promised no dilution of standards. But in 2018, when the new gender-neutral Army Combat Fitness Test was introduced, 84% of female soldiers failed. Instead of maintaining expectations, the Army rewrote them.
By 2022, the ACFT 4.0 came with gender-based scoring — a quiet admission that standards had become negotiable. The result: Combat units staffed with soldiers unable to meet the physical requirements of their jobs. That puts missions, morale, and lives at risk.
Worse, it undermines respect for women who do meet the standard. When the bar moves, doubt replaces trust. Hardworking female soldiers — the ones who earned their places — are forced to prove themselves twice: once in training and again in the eyes of their peers.
Diversity by design, weakness by consequence
In 2021, U.S. Special Operations Command declared that “diversity is an operational imperative.” But this new “imperative” wasn’t about the real diversity already found across the military — people from every background, race, and income level serving side by side. It was about engineering statistical parity, even in elite combat units where performance alone must decide who stays and who goes.
That mindset has consequences. Combat units can’t afford ideological experiments. The job is to close with and destroy the enemy — not to serve as laboratories for social theory. Lowering standards in the name of inclusion doesn’t just weaken readiness; it puts soldiers in unnecessary danger.
And no woman who trains to fight wants pity disguised as progress. The women who seek out elite units don’t ask for special treatment — they ask for the same chance to prove themselves by the same rules. When standards drop, those women lose too.
Strength in truth
Gender-neutral standards don’t discriminate. They recognize that men and women are different and that most people — men included — simply can’t meet the demands of combat. That’s not “oppression.” It’s just reality.
Women who pass those standards have demonstrated extraordinary strength, skill, and resolve. They deserve admiration, not suspicion. And those who don’t — along with the vast majority of men who don’t — can still serve honorably in the hundreds of vital roles that keep America’s military functioning.
RELATED: How America lost its warrior spirit when it feminized its academies
A sex-neutral standard is an act of fairness, not exclusion. It’s a recognition that excellence demands truth, not ideology — that merit, not identity, keeps soldiers alive and wins wars.
Restoring purpose
The military’s duty is national defense, not social engineering. Pretending that men and women have identical physical capabilities doesn’t empower women; it endangers them.
Reaffirming one standard for all isn’t an attack on women — it’s a defense of every soldier’s dignity. It calls each person to rise to the challenge, to serve according to one’s God-given abilities, and to be judged by results.
If we want a stronger force — and a stronger nation — we must stop confusing fairness with fantasy. Let’s demand standards worthy of the uniform, and let every soldier, male or female, earn respect the same way: by meeting them.
'Patently inequitable': Ketanji Brown Jackson whines after SCOTUS stays Biden judge's order in trans passport case
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered the Trump administration a victory on Thursday, prompting bitterness not only from trans activists but from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who suggested that the "regrettable" ruling might leave transgender-identifying individuals at risk of "harassment and bodily invasions."
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20 directing his secretaries of state and homeland security to ensure that government-issued identification documents, including passports and visas, "accurately reflect the holder's sex."
'Today, the Court refuses to answer equity's call.'
The Trump administration's reversal of the Biden-era policy that enabled people to choose their own sex marker as well as a third marker, "X," instead of an "M" or an "F" marker, was poorly received by some radicals.
Keen to have the government continue indulging their delusions, several transvestites joined the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and Covington & Burling LLP in a lawsuit over the passport policy in February.
In April, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, a Biden appointee, granted them a preliminary injunction preventing the State Department's enforcement of Trump's Executive Order 14168 while the lawsuit played out — but only as it applied to six of the plaintiffs. Months later, Kobick granted a class certification request and expanded the scope of her injunction.
After its appeal was rejected by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Trump administration filed an emergency stay request to the Supreme Court.
To the chagrin of non-straight activists, the high court granted the stay on Thursday, stating, "Displaying passport holders' sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."
RELATED: Trans-identifying teen agrees to plead guilty to plotting Valentine's Day massacre at high school
The court noted further in its unsigned order, which was opposed by all three liberal justices, that the "respondents have failed to establish that the Government's choice to display biological sex 'lack[s] any purpose other than a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group.' ... Nor are respondents likely to prevail in arguing that the State Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously by declining to depart from Presidential rules that Congress expressly required it to follow."
The high court concluded that absent a stay, the government would suffer a form of irreparable injury as the Biden judge's injunction could lead to foreign affairs implications.
Justice Jackson noted in her dissenting opinion that "as is becoming routine, the Government seeks an emergency stay of a District Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. As is also becoming routine, this Court misunderstands the assignment."
After casting doubt on her "obliging" colleagues' comprehension skills, Jackson — whose past opinions have bewildered her conservative and liberal peers alike — characterized the reality-affirming passport policy as "new" and legally questionable. Then sentences later, she acknowledged that it was not new so much as a reversion to the government's long-standing policy as it existed until at least the early 1990s.
Jackson argued that the cross-dressing plaintiffs face greater harm absent injunctive relief than the government would face absent a stay, and expressed doubt whether the government faces any irreparable harm at all.
"But the Court somehow sees fit to grant the Government's stay request regardless, waving away its abject failure to show any irreparable harm and promoting a patently inequitable outcome to boot," wrote Jackson.
Jackson suggested further that the indication of an individual's actual sex on a passport amounts to a concrete injury and echoed the Biden-appointed district court judge, writing that "transgender people who encounter obstacles to obtaining gender-congruent identity documents are almost twice as likely to experience suicidal ideation, and report more severe psychological distress, than transgender people who do not face such barriers."
In her conclusion, the leftist justice complained that "today, the Court refuses to answer equity's call."
Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, joined Jackson in complaining about the court's decision, stating, "This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights."
"This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents," said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "The Trump administration's policy is an unlawful attempt to dehumanize, humiliate, and endanger transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans, and we will continue to seek its ultimate reversal in the courts."
Attorney General Pam Bondi referred to the court's ruling as the administration's "24th victory at the Supreme Court's emergency docket" and noted, "Today’s stay allows the government to require citizens to list their biological sex on their passport. In other words: there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting for that simple truth."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Why Male Teachers Left Elementary Schools And Won’t Go Back
Men were driven out by the increasing feminization of schools, producing a vicious cycle of female-dominated schools.How Respecting Women’s Biology Fosters A Culture of Life
Research shows that abortifacients, not lack of money, are the top driver of the world’s population bomb.Can Erika Kirk’s Influence Help Women To ‘Woman Up?’
As Erika Kirk takes the helm at Turning Point, many have suggested she could do for young women what her husband has done for young men.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com