New York has a lot of problems. But they seems to always deflect from those problems to push their woke crap.

The colleges in California, and throughout the country, are finding that a lot of kids entering their schools can’t hack it. They have and idea on how to fix it.

And I am going to talk about a couple of incidents that we’re not talking about here. But it is coming here.

Here We Go Again!

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2062017783643152437/video/1

Ridiculous

https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/2062214237569642709/video/1

This Is the Biggest Problem in New York?

According to Perplexity:

New York lawmakers have passed a bill that would systematically replace the words “mother” and “father” with gender‑neutral terms like “gestating parent” and “non‑gestating parent” in state family‑related laws, but it is not law until Governor Kathy Hochul signs it.

What the bill actually does

• In family court, domestic relations, and related statutes, references to “mother” are replaced with “gestating parent,” and “father” with “non‑gestating parent” or simply “parent.”
• “Paternity” proceedings (to determine a child’s legal father) are renamed “parentage” proceedings, and “putative father” becomes “alleged parent” in the statutory language.
• The changes are largely within family‑law contexts (custody, parentage, surrogacy, same‑sex parent cases), rather than banning the everyday use of “mom” and “dad” by the public.

Status and process

• The bill passed the New York State Assembly earlier in the year and then passed the State Senate this week, so it has cleared the legislature.
• It now goes to Governor Hochul, who can sign it into law, veto it, or let it become law without her signature; as of the latest reports, it is awaiting her decision.

Stated rationale vs. political backlash

• Supporters argue the update is meant to align the law with modern family structures, including same‑sex couples, surrogacy, and assisted reproduction, where “biological mother/father” may not match who is actually raising the child.
• The bill memo says the goal is to use inclusive, gender‑neutral terminology so that all intended or functional parents are treated consistently in court.
• Critics—particularly Republicans and conservative commentators—frame it as an ideological attempt to “erase” the traditional terms “mother” and “father,” and some local officials have publicly vowed to reverse such changes if they gain higher office.

Practical legal impact if signed

• In litigation, petitions and orders would refer to “gestating parent,” “non‑gestating parent,” and “parentage,” which could affect how parentage is framed in disputes over custody, support, and adoption.
• The change dovetails with a broader trend in New York toward recognizing non‑traditional and multi‑parent arrangements (for example, confirmatory adoptions and recognizing more than two legal parents in some cases).
• It does not on its face strip anyone of parental rights; instead it re‑labels the categories under which those rights are asserted and adjudicated. This is the slippery slope.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/3fa6c26e-f250-4784-90cd-aeaeb2bd43f7

Well, Yeah

According to the Post Millennial:

Hundreds of University of California faculty members have signed an open letter urging faculty leaders to return to a standardized testing model for math and science applicants. The letter warns of a clear drop in math scores since the tests were abandoned.

After a 2020 legal challenge was raised by a student that argued the requirement provided an advantage to students who could afford prep services, the tests were eliminated. The group of UC Berkeley math professors sent the letter arguing that the college’s decision to abstain from test requirements created ability gaps so broad that instructors were having to teach middle-school math to college-aged students.

The professors cite concerning trends among math students in their open letter.

“Over the past five years, we have seen a widening divergence in mathematical preparation levels within the same classroom,” the letter reads. “This trend indicates that current admissions practices do not provide a sufficiently reliable check on mathematical readiness for STEM majors. The UC San Diego Senate–Administration Workgroup on Admissions report documents this crisis in stark terms: in the last five years, the number of students whose mathematics skills fall below high school level increased nearly thirtyfold; moreover, 70% of those students fall below middle school levels, reaching roughly one in twelve members of the entering cohort.”

The letter urged the need for the school system to bring back the ACT and SAT requirements as a “critical baseline” to examine whether students have the mathematical abilities required for challenging STEM coursework. It argues that schools in California can no longer reliably distinguish readiness for university-level STEM majors in an era of severe grade inflation and AI-assisted application essays.

The professors conclude the letter with a call to action, urging the college to take four steps:

• Reinstate SAT/ACT Requirements
• Validate Academic Readiness
• Establish Faculty Oversight
• Mandate Institutional Accountability

In response to the letter penned by the UC professors, UC Academic Senate Chair Ahmet Palazoglu made the following statement:

“In light of concerns raised by UC faculty about student preparedness for undergraduate study, in March I called upon our systemwide faculty Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) to address timely topics tied to students’ college readiness and UC’s admissions process. BOARS is in the process of proposing a roadmap of policy work and partnership-building with other state and K–12 education leaders in the next academic year and beyond.”

The dispute comes as colleges across the United States grapple with the new era of test-blind admissions. While supporters of these policies argue that the reduced restrictions expand access, there are still many who see the emerging trends as concerning.

https://thepostmillennial.com/university-of-california-professors-tired-of-teaching-students-who-cant-make-the-grade-demand-return-of-standardized-tests

They Ain’t Quitting

According to Reduxx:

Entrepreneur and founder of a women’s-only application has been ordered to pay $20,000, with an additional maximum of $100,000 in court fees, to a trans-identified male after he was denied access to the platform. CEO of Giggle for Girls Proprietary Limited, Sall Grover, was also found to have “discriminated” against Jason “Roxy” Tickle by recognizing him as a male in a selfie he submitted for on-boarding.

The ruling comes after more than four years of litigation, with Tickle having first filed a discrimination complaint through the Australian Human Rights Commission in December of 2021. The latest and final ruling, handed down in the Federal Court on Friday afternoon, was a response to an appeal lodged by Tickle in August 2024 to a decision made by Justice Bromwich stating that Grover was guilty of “indirect discrimination.” At the time, Grover was ordered to pay $10,000 in compensation to Tickle and to pay his court costs up to $50,000. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Tickle further pursued litigation seeking a verdict of direct discrimination.

In a shocking new development, Justice Melissa Perry sided with Tickle, doubled the compensation payout from $10,000 to $20,000, found Grover guilty of direct discrimination, and ordered her to pay court costs for Tickle up to $100,000. In her decision, Justice Perry cited the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984, which was significantly amended in 2013 to include explicit protections for “gender identity.”

.https://reduxx.info/aus-founder-of-women-only-app-ordered-to-pay-up-to-120000-to-trans-identified-male-for-recognizing-him-as-a-man/

More of This

According to Reduxx:

A French women’s rights activist has been found guilty of “public insult” over a remark she made during a televised debate with a trans-identified male. Dora Moutot was informed on May 20 that she had been convicted of “public insult against a person or group of people on account of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity” due to her comment that women are “wary of people with penises.”

Moutot made the statement during an October 2022 episode of the popular talk show Quelle Époque!, where she had been invited as a guest to debate a trans-identified male named Marie Cau, the mayor of Tilloy-lez-Marchiennes. While discussing the issue of men who claim to be transgender women, Moutot stated that women have a need to be cautious in the presence of “people with penises.”

In its ruling, the court argued that Moutot had reduced “transgender women” to “their male attribute.”

“By referring to them as ‘penis people’ whom ‘women’ are ‘forced to distrust’, the defendant first assigns transgender women to their penis, that is, to their male sexual attribute of birth, while denying their female gender identity since they are opposed to ‘women’, the defendant thus implicitly considering that transgender women are not women,” the verdict read.

“This statement, which in a generalizing and essentializing way denies the gender identity of those concerned and assigns them to a masculine sexual attribute by associating the latter with a state of danger for cisgender women, is outrageous towards transgender women because of their sex and their gender identity.”

Incredibly Moutot was fined €1,000, to be paid to the state, as well as the payment of €500 in damages to each of the three trans activist associations who backed Cau’s legal complaint, and an additional €2,000 to cover the court costs, which had come from public funding.

.https://reduxx.info/france-womens-rights-activist-convicted-of-insulting-transgender-women-by-discussing-their-male-attribute-fined-e4500/