I think that’s basically right, flametitan. Journalists often flub issues that concern law, science, and other areas of specialized knowledge. Frustrating they didn’t link the memo itself. I’m no expert on Title IX but as it prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex,” but not gender, it appears that is what the fight is about. For obvious reasons, not least of which it’s not the best use of your thread, I’m not going to dwell on that. It does however bear upon my questions about people confusing what they’re talking about and getting people to understand each other and engage in productive dialogue. I’ve enjoyed your answers.
I’m glad you’ve been enjoying my answers. Sometimes I feel like I’m not quite getting my own point across as clear as I’d like, or that I might be missing something in the question, so it’s reaffirming that people are finding them informative. Likewise, I’ve enjoyed the questions so far. They’ve seem to come mostly from a place of genuine interest, rather than trying to get me to confirm or deny your own biases, or a deliberate attempt to trip me up.
In particular, yours has me thinking about it hard, as while, “Are the people in the debate talking past each other?” seems like it should have a straightforward answer, it really doesn’t. It’s more multifaceted, owing to a combination of deliberate or accidental spreading of misinformation, people reporting on it getting terminology mixed up, simple talking past one another, people being unwilling to educate others, people being unwilling to listen, etc. Probably doesn’t help that I have some obvious biases 😉