Joe Biden issues new statement on the transgender debate

I keep asking that question myself and never getting a response. I know it's something to do with gender essence but is nothing to do with stereotyping.

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

How very transphobic of you.

So what are you doing for women's rights right now, other than trying to ensure only natal women can be called women?

That would because only those born women are in fact women.

Bored with this continual promo word salad now.

Women's rights, as opposed to more general human rights, typically come down to two things:

Rights we need in virtue of our reproductive capacity (abortion, contraception, not being sacked when we get pregnant)

Or a reminder of those rights we ought to have had all along - human rights - but which we have historically been denied because we were seen as less than human, like the vote, forms of property ownership and inheritance.

Male humans who identify as trans don't need the former and always had the latter (see, for eg. the weasely get out clauses round male primogeniture in the GRA).

So fuck off with this "excluding trans people from human rights" nonsense unless you can come up with concrete specific examples of human rights they ought to have that they don't have.

How are you defining "man" and "woman" there @edgeofacoin?

Yes but some men need mammograms and cervical smear tests too. Some men have vaginas. Not all women have vaginas. This has nothing to do with women's healthcare as it affects both men and women. This isn't a feminist issue.

If a woman is fired from her job because she is pregnant, that's not sex discrimination because men get pregnant and can be birthing parents too. She can't sue her employer because the law applies equally to men and women. The employer fires men and women equally for getting pregnant.

It's offensive to assume that heavy periods is a women's issue. If a state refuses to provide medical care for people with heavy periods, that's unfortunate but it hardly discriminates against women.

That's what we need to overturn

Not reducing women to not makes no

Anyone who isn't a natal male
So natal male is the default? Is that what you mean?

Not to worry, he won’t win.

Reducing women to "not males."

Defining an oppressed group by drawing attention to their non-membership of the dominant group.

Reinforcing man as "default human", woman as "other" yet again.

So much progress, so much inclusion. I feel a positively warm glow at the thought of my new status as "non male".

Oh no, hang on a mo - I don't. Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

The not male was not a gotcha, it was a short hand. Or was forcing the gaze onto the bloody males that are the main problem.

And yes, people can have differing political views, but when those views include seeing certain people born a certain way as less than, there's a name for those views and damn right we should be polarised against them

Kitty I've never really understood why this hasn't happened but then I'm not in the US. What's your take on it?

The federal government is relatively weak in the US. Essentially congress can spend money to do things (that’s why the things it passes are called bills, not laws), but it’s harder for it to say “you can’t do something”. Whatever isn’t done by Congress is left to the states. Specifically the feds can spend money on things but it’s probably unconstitutional for the federal govt to Try to pass a law stating “no state may outlaw abortion”.

Essentially what the federal govt could do is to withhold funding from states which don’t comply. This could be done via executive order. That’s what title 9 does for women’s sports for example. Either congress can do this (pass a bill which eliminates funding based on lack of abortion rights) or the president could do so.

I think even if this were done there would be some very deeply red states that would ban abortion anyway.

I presumed @Aesopfable was being sarcastic.

On average it's about 10 per day RuffleCrow. Thousands a year which is shocking but much lower than the 50 figure.

now.org/resource/violence-against-women-in-the-united-states-statistic/

What's your opinion on that?

Up to 50 a day @Gurufloof?! Wow. Did not know that. I understood their stats were of a similar proportion to ours - i.e about 8-10 per week. I wish i was more shocked.

I didn't ask why you were using it, I asked what it means.
What's a not-male?

In the States, do I have to drive more than 100 miles to access female-oriented healthcare, because Planned Parenthood has been driven out?

What is female-orientated healthcare? Do you mean healthcare where people wear dresses and high heels and have long hair? Because it would be exclusionary to not include prostrate screening and for it not to run programs for checking for testicular cancer - after all in your shiny world ‘females’ need this too. Any they definitely mustn’t focus on reproductive health of gestators as that would be transphobic.

women to shut up, but asking women to have more than one stupid thought in their head

Your abject contempt for women is on explicit display. Do you hear yourself? By the way? It is attitudes such as yours and your woeful inability to comprehend that people have different political views which guarantees increasing polarisation. If you really want to see a patriarchy in action? I suggest you get on a plane and get off further East than Euro Disney.