Joe Biden issues new statement on the transgender debate

FWRLurker thanks for the explanation. I can see that must make it difficult and yet both Clinton and Obama had two terms in office. Was there really no opportunity in those 16 years do you think? Or was it more down to a lack of will?

Right, well the issue is that Clinton and Obama were in power when roe was not in question. There’s little need or political will to Preemptively punish states Financially for Passing laws that will simply be struck down In the courts because the SC has preempted with the roe decision.

Meanwhile anti abortion activists were working to pass such laws in order to provide a continual barrage of cases to test the courts, in case it ever came to pass that the SC had a majority willing to reconsider the issue.

Women who are denied healthcare under these unconstitutional laws are suffering right now. Dems got complacent for sure - “oh well thats already decided by roe and will be overturned in time” Doesn’t help the 12 year old denied an abortion after her father raped her right now. I do think that the repubS being in power has certainly embolden states to put forth more legal challenges without worry of being punished.

"Are you saying there's a difference between natal women and transwomen and they have different needs?"

Is this a serious question?
Are the needs of a woman, a human female, different to those of a transwoman, a human male?
Yes, it isn't rocket science, very different needs and if that makes me transphobic, then I suggest that 99% of all people are transphobic.

I guess if you are voting for Biden (despite his lies and sexual offenses and senility) you need to be looking more at the running mate. My guess is Biden would be stood down fairly quickly.

Trump is an arsehole, there is no way around that, is he more dangerous than Biden? At the start of this I think we all thought he'd have started world war 3 by now. In fact, despite his mouth, he has fared better than the world thought.

I still think it's a hell of a poor choice to have to make though

Without a meaningful definition of 'woman', women's rights can't exist.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp.

It's ludicrous that we are having to fight for the definition of 'woman'. I entirely agree that we should not have to fight for this: there are other things we need to fight for.

However, the definition underpins everything else. How on earth do you fight for the rights of 'not males'?

So yes: the questions 'what is a woman' and 'what characteristics are shared by women and transwomen that are not also shared by men and transmen' are critical to working out who women are as a class, and what rights and protections are specific to that class.

I see a lot of people on this board agitating about our seeming-obsession with definitions. It is telling, however, that they tend to leave the board rather than answer any questions.

between a senile/corrupt fool and a narcissistic psycopath.

I mean this still seems like a clear choice?!?

Not to mention the latter is also corrupt so why only apply that to the first.

You make me utterly sick, and utterly despairing. You're working towards Gilead and you don't even recognise it

. You know what makes me laugh? There is a serious assault on freedom of speech, rational debate, Enlightenment values. The cheerleaders of this attack on Enlightenment values want to sever words from their meanings and exert total narrative control. Their tactics involve denunciations, ad hominems, gratuitous smearing of people who don't share their political beliefs. They don't believe in diversity of opinion. They don't believe in freedom of speech. They don't believe in external reality. They believe they have the right to force obedience and compliance in their quest for power. The more this is made explicit, the more resistance.

The US, the most powerful country in the World.
The choice for POTUS is between a senile/corrupt fool and a narcissistic psycopath.

I've put my cards on the table. I've said what I think a woman is. I've said what I think women's rights are. I've said what I've done in RL for women's rights in the workplace.

All I've heard from Fanny are a load of completely unsubstantiated slurs and accusations.

Nothing about what she thinks who counts as a woman, what women's rights are, what she's doing in RL.

I invite her cordially to piss or get off the pot.

Either tell us what she believes and what she's doing, or withdraw the unsubstantiated slurs.

Can't not can identity. Where is that edit button...

Nope. Funnily enough the name-calling isn’t winning me to your argument Fanny

But DameFanny, how can you talk about issues facing women when you can identify who falls under the term woman? Is not being able to access gender affirming surgery an issue women face? Is not receiving invites for prostate checks something women face? Will not having access to maternity leave still be important to women when a very vocal part of women will never need it?

I understand your frustation. I sometimes get flustered and annoyed too when someone asks me a straightforward question and I can't answer it.

And this is why the feminism board is dead.

It's acceptable to say that voting Trump is feminist because he hasn't said transwomen are women, even though he's a predatory rapist (per Ivana Trump) a serial sexual-assaulter (per his own words) and a forced-birther (in office if not in his own private life)

It's acceptable to completely ignore issues facing women because it doesn't matter unless you define exactly what a woman is

And you can't discuss any discrimination against women on almost any board without one of you popping up to say something stupid about transwomen.

You make me utterly sick, and utterly despairing. You're working towards Gilead and you don't even recognise it.

Do yòu think think doing away with perfectly adequate words for things will continue as a trend more generally?!

So tree becomes "Arborial-identifying-life-form" (Ailf)

Cat becomes "Self-Identified-Deity" (Sid).

Or we could just go back to grunting at each other before being hit over the head with a club and getting dragged to some guy's cave.

Okay, your starter for 10, Fanny.

You say women's rights are very important to you.

What do you see those rights as involving?

What unified the group of people you see as needing such rights?

So what do you call them? And how do you define them?

No I wouldn't refer to women as not-male, but I will refer to you as monomaniac

You still haven't answered the question.

I was using not male in a very specific context there, I was not calling women, transwomen, transmen, binary people or intersex people 'not male' as a label, I was seeking to simply put the focus on males as being the patriarchy. As I've said. I don't know how many more ways I can say that, but perhaps if you took it in good faith we could actually talk about the consequences?

FWRLurker thanks for the explanation. I can see that must make it difficult and yet both Clinton and Obama had two terms in office. Was there really no opportunity in those 16 years do you think? Or was it more down to a lack of will?

Since you ask, trade union activism. Low level bread and butter stuff like getting my employer to introduce childcare vouchers, or fighting equal pay claims (which were indirectly the result of maternity leave - pay discrepancies due to performance pay and missing out on increments).

So all rooted in your basic, boring old female reproductive capacity, and the way the patriarchy at worst weaponised it (my mum's experience back in the day when you could be legally sacked for getting pregnant) or now when the patriarchy pretends not to see it and therefore constructs its social institutions round male experience as default.

None of it to do with gender feels.

Are you going to answer the question? Here it is again: Are you saying that you believe 'not male' is an acceptable alternative to 'woman'?

So what are you doing for women's rights right now

For a kick off, not referring to women as 'not males' and not calling women 'stupid' because they don't obediently chant the slogans of the new religion.

So what are you actively doing for women's rights? That doesn't focus on defining what a woman is? Do you agree that there's no point in women's rights if you can't define 'woman'? Do you not get huge incredibly short sighted and dangerous that is?

I'll ask you again because I'd like this to be absolutely clear - Are you saying that you believe 'not male' is an acceptable alternative to 'woman'?