Model response to a dilemma for women in the left-right storm (really?)

Do you actually think any of this is relevant to the topic of this thread?

And do you actually think that this has not been covered in the posts about him?

Please be very clear.

What context does this add to whether or not Riley Gaines is pro choice or not?

Riley Gaines was the topics of the posts. I was just pointing out that you have taken a very polarised view of the senator that she did some campaigning around female sports categories so as to discredit Riley Gaines as a 'feminist' and to attribute to her views that YOU believe she has. Yet have not yet provided evidence of.

Given the outrage after the SCOTUS rolled back Roe v Wade, and the visible backing-off of the states from legislation restricting access after the results of the midterms, especially in Paul's home state, Kentucky, I think we're unlikely to see further restrictions. Poor women at the bottom of the economic pile are going to have problems until access is codified into law, but the majority of states preserve legal access. The system here is so different from the British system that it's hard to wrap your head around the ramifications.

Most regular health insurance covers abortion now, but it wouldn’t if Rand’s other bill had been passed prohibiting healthcare insurance coverage of abortion.

And every few thousand $s towards the 7.5% so you can deduct it helps.

People on that low a wage probably don't pay tax so it would be irrelevant anyway.. Well women on that low of wage wouldn’t be able to get an abortion at all because federal funds fund Medicaid.

It was not an attempt to detach anything as well you know. It was me protesting @BernardBlacksMolluscs Pretending that GC has fuck all to do with the definition of woman being based on biological sex or campaigning for womens spaces:

I posted a video of Whitlock criticising the inability of a Supreme Court nominee Jackson who told Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., that she was unable to define what a woman was because she is "not a biologist."

He stated: “We’re naming Supreme Court justices who aren’t committed to truth, but they are political activists and so a simple question like ‘what’s a woman,' she can’t answer because the goal is to create chaos and disorder by dismantling the truth. If there is no agreed-upon truth as simple as men and women, you can’t have an organized, properly functioning society,"

This was said in response to my post:
BernardBlacksMolluscs · 04/01/2023 19:29
”where does he say stereotypes on the basis of sex are wrong? that's what gender critical means

do you know what

gender
critical

mean?

cos it's starting to look like you don't”

to which I responded
”Im afraid you are mistaken. Yes GC activists claim that gender stereotypes based on sex should be abolished, but that is not what they are campaigning for, is it? They are campaigning for the definition of woman to be based purely on biological sex, ergo transwomen are not women because they are male. And of course everything that goes along with that, as in transwomen cannot access womens single sex spaces or services or toilets/changing rooms or sports, or awards or diversity hires because they are not women.

But in case you think I’m wrong, here’s what Wikipedia says…

“Feminists who describe themselves as "gender-critical" say that biological sex is "real, important, and immutable" and is "not to be conflated with gender identity", and that feminism should organize with emphasis on the basis of sex rather than gender.”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Gender-critical_feminism_and_trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism

So Whitlocks discussion on the definition of woman and criticism of transgenderism as an absurdity is 100% GC.”

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 04/01/2023 19:45 Then said
oh you're so confused and also you're not respecting my lived experience
so now i'm confused. I thought you were kind?

GC feminists don't want women to be defined on the basis of sexist stereotypes. The reason women are oppressed is because of the type of body we have, not because some of us wear lipstick. GC feminists also seek equality of opportunity for women. that's the 'feminist' bit

yer chappy doesn't give a shit about sexist stereotypes. he knows who buys all the christmas presents and earns 10% less than whom, and it's entirely possible that he's completely cool with that and thinks it's the natural order of things. that isn't addressed in the clip or article you posted

so based on that he is neither

gender critical
a feminist (which we knew because he's a bloke)

which is when I stated
Im sorry but the vast majority of GC feminists are not campaigning for “equality of opportunity” they are campaigning for the definition of woman and single sex spaces as I listed above.

Theres nothing wrong in what I said, and a lot wrong with Bernard contending that gender critical doesn’t at all mean activism regarding the definition of a woman being based on biological sex and doesn’t mean defending womens single sex spaces- why else say that I don’t know what gender critical means and it really means sexist stereotypes are wrong and then later on refuse my statement as to the fact GC feminists are fighting for the definition of woman and to defend womens single sex spaces by saying, no they’re fighting for “equality of opportunity”?

If Bernard agreed even a tiny bit with me, why say I am wrong? And I don’t know what GC means? Why not say, oh, and the GC activists who are also feminists are also fighting feminist issues like sex based stereotypes and for equality of opportunity?

American taxpayer here.

"And then for the few women who can afford to pay for an abortion can’t even deduct the expenses paid 100% out of pocket from their tax returns as is usual with healthcare expenses on a 1040 Income Tax return:

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.124 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2021
This bill prohibits a tax deduction for medical expenses relating to an abortion, with specified exceptions for rape or incest, or to protect the life or health of the mother."

IRS says "In 2022, the IRS allows all taxpayers to deduct their qualified unreimbursed medical care expenses that exceed 7.5% of their adjusted gross income. You must itemize your deductions on IRS Schedule A in order to deduct your medical expenses instead of taking the standard deduction."

In this sentence reimbursed means what your insurance company hasn't paid. Abortion isn't such an expensive procedure (and most regular insurance covers it, including low-cost Obamacare policies) that many would be affected. People on that low a wage probably don't pay tax so it would be irrelevant anyway.

“You haven’t even looked up the laws he is supporting/advocating including a constitutional amendment that would give personhood to an unborn child from conception, thereby meaning they have the right to life and banning abortion from conception. Or the law he voted on that would mean American women would have to pay the full costs of abortions as a private procedure, effectively denying access to abortion for most women. Which are listed on his pages that I have linked to. What have you for evidence? Nothing but “I’m well aware of….blah blah blah” with no links and no evidence."

You mean this one?
www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61

No, not that one. 🙄 you definitely haven’t done any research and yet presume to lecture me on absolutism and abortion being nuanced to try and portray a 100% pro-life politician as some sort of moderate.

No I was specifically referring to these bills:

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.99 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Life at Conception Act of 2021
This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.

And these two bills which by prohibiting federal funds means all female federal employees and all low income women on Medicaid can get no abortions, plus, for all other US women, their private health insurance can’t cover abortions either

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.92 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2021
This bill modifies provisions relating to federal funding for, and health insurance coverage of, abortions. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions or for health coverage that includes abortions….
The bill also prohibits qualified health plans from including coverage for abortions. Currently, qualified health plans may cover abortion, but the portion of the premium attributable to abortion coverage is not eligible for subsidies.

And then for the few women who can afford to pay for an abortion can’t even deduct the expenses paid 100% out of pocket from their tax returns as is usual with healthcare expenses on a 1040 Income Tax return:

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.124 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2021
This bill prohibits a tax deduction for medical expenses relating to an abortion, with specified exceptions for rape or incest, or to protect the life or health of the mother.

No I haven’t. I have posted the fact Riley voted for and did election campaign work for pro-lifer Rand. That’s a lot more than ‘standing next to someone’.

It’s rather like trying to claim that Nigel Farage is (secretly) a Remainer and all his campaign work on Brexit and his vote to Leave meant nothing.

You don’t even know how wrong you are about Paul Rand.

ioncongress.com/index.php?page=Vote&member_id=P000603&first_name=Rand&last_name=Paul&state=KY

Introduced in Senate (01/16/2018)
S.2311 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)
Voted Yes Jan 29 2018 - 5:50 pm
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
This bill amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime for any person to perform or attempt to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more.
A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
The bill provides exceptions for an abortion: (1) that is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, or (2) when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception must comply with specified requirements.
A woman who undergoes a prohibited abortion may not be prosecuted for violating or conspiring to violate the provisions of this bill.

Introduced in Senate (02/11/2020)
S.3275 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
Voted Yes Feb 25 2020 - 3:31 pm
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Introduced in Senate (01/31/2019)
S.311 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
Voted Yes Feb 25 2020 - 4:06 pm
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement.
A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony.
A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill.

Introduced in Senate (05/03/2022)
S.4132 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Voted No May 11 2022 - 3:33 pm
Women's Health Protection Act of 2022
This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.
Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to

• prescribe certain drugs,
• offer abortion services via telemedicine, or
• immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health. Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to
• perform unnecessary medical procedures,
• provide medically inaccurate information,
• comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or
• carry out all services connected to an abortion. In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health. The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations. The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment.

Bills he has sponsored or co-sponsored, meaning he would vote YES if it made it that far…

www.congress.gov/member/rand-paul/P000603?q=%7B%22type%22%3A%5B%22bills%22%5D%2C%22subject%22%3A%22Health%22%7D

Introduced in Senate (04/22/2021)
S.1325 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Woman's Right To Know Act
This bill specifies requirements for informed consent that health care providers must obtain before performing an abortion procedure.
Providers must present a woman seeking an abortion with an authorization form at least 24 hours before performing the procedure. The form must (1) include specified information concerning gestational age, associated developmental characteristics, and medical risks; (2) disclose penalties that providers may face for failing to obtain the requisite informed consent; and (3) include an affirmation that the individual signing the form understands the information. The form must be signed and witnessed in person and retained in the medical file.
Providers do not have to obtain such consent if, in reasonable medical judgment, obtaining it would pose a greater risk of death or substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function, excluding psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman.
The bill also establishes civil penalties for providers who do not comply with these requirements.

Introduced in Senate (04/15/2021)
S.1144 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Protect Funding for Women's Health Care Act
This bill prohibits federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America or its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics.

Introduced in Senate (02/08/2021)
S.294 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Parental Notification and Intervention Act
This bill restricts the performance of an abortion on an unemancipated minor under 18 years of age.
Specifically, it prohibits a person or organization from performing, facilitating, or assisting with an abortion on an unemancipated minor without first complying with certain requirements, including parental notification and a 96-hour waiting period.
It establishes penalties—a fine, up to one year in prison, or both—for each willful violation.
A parent who is required to be notified of an abortion of an unemancipated minor may sue in federal court to prohibit the abortion.
Parental notification requirements may be waived in a medical emergency or in a case of physical abuse.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.139 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Defund Planned Parenthood Act
This bill prohibits federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America or its affiliates.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.137 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act
This bill prohibits the use of federal funds for purposes outside the United States related to abortion.
Specifically, the bill prohibits funding to certain foreign or domestic organizations that perform or promote abortions, furnish or develop items intended to procure abortions, or provide financial support for an entity that conducts such activities.
Current U.S. policy prohibits the provision of federal funds to a foreign nongovernmental organization unless it agrees to not perform or actively promote abortions.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.124 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2021
This bill prohibits a tax deduction for medical expenses relating to an abortion, with specified exceptions for rape or incest, or to protect the life or health of the mother.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.123 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
Specifically, a health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital. Additionally, a health care practitioner or other employee who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the degree-of-care requirements must immediately report such failure to law enforcement.
A health care practitioner who fails to provide the required degree of care, or a health care practitioner or other employee who fails to report such failure, is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
An individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive under this bill and allows her to bring a civil action against a health care practitioner or other employee for violations.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.109 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
This bill creates new federal crimes related to transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion.
Specifically, the bill makes it a crime to knowingly transport a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion without satisfying the requirements of a parental involvement law in the minor's resident state. A parental involvement law requires parental consent or notification, or judicial authorization, for a minor to obtain an abortion.
The bill prohibits an individual who has committed incest with a minor from knowingly transporting the minor across a state line to receive an abortion.
Finally, the bill makes it a crime for a physician to knowingly perform or induce an abortion on an out-of-state minor without first notifying the minor's parent.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.99 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Life at Conception Act of 2021
This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.
Nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.92 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2021
This bill modifies provisions relating to federal funding for, and health insurance coverage of, abortions.
Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions or for health coverage that includes abortions. Such restrictions extend to the use of funds in the budget of the District of Columbia. Additionally, abortions may not be provided in a federal health care facility or by a federal employee.
Historically, language has been included in annual appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions—such language is commonly referred to as the Hyde Amendment. Similar language is also frequently included in appropriations bills for other federal agencies and the District of Columbia. The bill makes these restrictions permanent and extends the restrictions to all federal funds (rather than specific agencies).
The bill's restrictions regarding the use of federal funds do not apply in cases of rape, incest, or where a physical disorder, injury, or illness endangers a woman's life unless an abortion is performed. The Hyde Amendment provides the same exceptions.
The bill also prohibits qualified health plans from including coverage for abortions. Currently, qualified health plans may cover abortion, but the portion of the premium attributable to abortion coverage is not eligible for subsidies.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.88 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act
This bill prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from awarding family planning grants to entities that perform abortions or provide funding to other entities that perform abortions. To receive a grant, an entity must certify it will refrain from those activities during the grant period.
The bill provides exceptions for abortions (1) in cases of rape or incest; or (2) when the life of the woman is in danger due to a physical disorder, injury, or illness. It also exempts hospitals unless they provide funds to non-hospital entities that provide abortions.
HHS must report annually on this prohibition.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.87 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Protecting Life in Crisis Act
This bill specifies that federal funds allocated for COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) response efforts may not, in general, be used for abortions. Current law generally prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions through language included in appropriations bills, such as the Hyde Amendment.
The bill also restricts the use of federal tax credits or other federal funding for health insurance coverage if the coverage includes abortions.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.78 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Support And Value Expectant Moms and Babies Act of 2021 or the SAVE Moms and Babies Act of 2021
This bill prohibits the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from approving any new drug (either as a brand-name drug or a generic) intended to terminate a pregnancy and imposes additional restrictions on such drugs that are already approved.
Under the bill, an already-approved drug intended to terminate a pregnancy may be dispensed to a patient only with a prescription. Furthermore, the FDA may not approve any labeling change that would authorize (1) using the drug after 70 days of gestation, or (2) dispensing the drug by any means other than in-person administration by the prescribing health care practitioner.
The FDA must also impose additional restrictions on such already-approved drugs, including by (1) requiring the prescribing health care practitioner to receive a special certification, (2) prohibiting the practitioner to also act as the dispensing pharmacist, and (3) requiring the practitioner to have the ability to provide surgical intervention to the patient.
The bill also rescinds any investigational use exemption already granted to such a drug if the bill would have prohibited the FDA from granting the exemption. (Currently, the FDA may grant an exemption to certain market approval requirements if a drug is intended solely for use in safety and effectiveness investigations.)

Introduced in Senate (01/27/2021)
S.61 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
This bill establishes a new criminal offense for performing or attempting to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more.
A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to five years, or both.
The bill provides exceptions for an abortion (1) that is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, or (2) when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception must comply with specified requirements.
A woman who undergoes a prohibited abortion may not be prosecuted for violating or conspiring to violate the provisions of this bill.

"Do you or do you not have any evidence, apart from your absolutist opinion that anyone joining a campaign for women's sports with a particular political party must agree with 100% of what that party stands for, that Riley Gaines is 'prochoice'?"

And of course, that is pro-life. Not pro-choice.

But the outcome is the same.

"Do you or do you not have any evidence, apart from your absolutist opinion that anyone joining a campaign for women's sports with a particular political party must agree with 100% of what that party stands for, that Riley Gaines is either 'prolife' or 'prochoice'?"

I'm also interested in the following:

A left wing woman and a right wing man are stood together at an event.

Why is it the left wing woman is now tainted by the right wing man [to be brought up against them forever] and yet the right wing man isn't tainted by the left wing woman [and this is never, ever an issue for anyone]?

Why does it only go one way?

Sorry, just to clarify, are you saying you did not say this:

Onnabugeisha · 04/01/2023 19:50

"Im sorry but the vast majority of GC feminists are not campaigning for “equality of opportunity” they are campaigning for the definition of woman and single sex spaces as I listed above."

Or are you saying that this statement is NOT attempting to detach equality from a movement?

Do you disagree that equality and sometimes equity for women and girls is integral to fighting to prioritise sex over gender where sex matter?

Please clarify rather than resorting to further personal attacks.

You see, I am not 'peddling' anything. I am seeking a discussion using truth and not assumptions based on polarised thinking and prejudice.

Do you or do you not have any evidence, apart from your absolutist opinion that anyone joining a campaign for women's sports with a particular political party must agree with 100% of what that party stands for, that Riley Gaines is 'prochoice'?

Do you have evidence?
Or don't you have evidence?

I think you are missing some pretty substantial foundations of just why woman are campaigning.

You have just said: "To which I said that’s not the #1 thing that’s being campaigned for, and doubt it’s even on their radar. I mean how ridiculous,…women prisoners want equality of opportunity with TW for the best cell in a woman’s prison? What the fuck? Women want “equal opportunity” with TW for women only jobs as defined by the equally act? Er no, that’s not true."

Do you really not understand that females need to have their unique needs considered in policies just the same as males?

Let me spell it out for you.

Women and girls, as a collective, are female. Their bodies mean they are targeted to attack and deserve the dignity that seems pretty universally recognised until the last years of being away from the male gaze. And their oppressors.

Those attacks are a form of negative sexist discrimination in the extreme. Therefore they need single sex spaces for their needs- just as a male needs to have safety and dignity suited to their needs.

Equality in this instance is ensuring that both males and females have spaces that suit their needs. It is not putting everyone together. Because there, females will be at a disadvantage. If you want, you can frame this as 'equity of outcomes'.

"I mean how ridiculous,…women prisoners want equality of opportunity with TW for the best cell in a woman’s prison? What the fuck?"

Yes, your example is ridiculous. I am glad you agree. It has nothing relevant to the truth.

The truth is that females as a collective need to be able to have equal opportunity to access a safe space that suits female needs. Do you agree? Or are you just going to come up with a clearly nonsense take on it again?

"Women want “equal opportunity” with TW for women only jobs as defined by the equally act? Er no, that’s not true."

Are you talking about jobs here that have been set up for female people, women, only? Jobs for ensuring that female people have access to a person in a role that means they again, have the same equal opportunity as a male person does, of having the best care with consideration to their dignity and their need to have same sex.

Are you really posing needing 'single sex' as being not an equal opportunity? Is that where you are coming from?

That a woman's need, due to trauma, abuse or just any discomfort, for a single sex provision is that woman exerting negative sexist discrimination against males and therefore that woman should be shamed?

Is this the basis you are posting whatever you are posting on?

Female sports categories could well be described as a solution of equity not equality. I have stated that some solutions we discuss are those based on equity. To enable female sports people to have the same opportunities as males. Because without this, they will not have those same opportunities.

Sometimes we fight for equal opportunity, sometime it has to be equity.

"And then you have posted numerous posts waxing lyrical about me somehow being deliberately prejudiced and spreading misinformation….WTF? By saying what is GC and it is exactly what whole fucking world says is GC as shown on Wiki."

Yes. You do seem to have some entrenched prejudices.

And hypocrisy.

Did you not post:

"And yes you are cherry picking by applying filters on everyone GC who has been on TC. It is academically dishonest and wouldn’t pass journalistic ethics much less any peer review." (Onnabugeisha · 04/01/2023 19:54)

Yet, here you are "I posted the Wikipedia link on Gender Critical…and it says what I said."

I will leave readers to make their own decisions on your posts.

www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61

eu.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/28/rand-paul-vs-charles-booker-how-race-could-affect-abortion-in-the-us/10014264002/

Don't let facts and evidence stand in the way of whatever you think you are achieving here!

"You posted a sentence he said over a decade ago in which he merely states the States should decide on abortion when he was pushing for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. I have posted what is currently in his webpages. He is seeking to ban abortion in his State."

Really?

eu.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/28/rand-paul-vs-charles-booker-how-race-could-affect-abortion-in-the-us/10014264002/

28th July 2022 is obviously a decade ago. Sure. You can say that.

"It’s not “guilt by association” to base an opinion on a persons very real and frequent political actions that demonstrate they espouse certain beliefs. I’m shocked to the core that you refuse to attribute beliefs based on actions and insist on I will continue to not attribute beliefs to a woman where none has been stated. Such naïvety is not something to brag about imho. Because if Kier Starmer said “oh I will protect womens single sex spaces” you’d believe that is what he believes, even if he does the exact opposite by his actions? You must have believed Boris Johnson too then that no party at no10 happened during lockdown and the evidence of his actions is merely people being “guilt by association” assholes. Yeah right. You are so full of 💩"

You really cannot engage without personal attacks and then over exaggerating other people's comments as personal attacks can you. There is a name for this.

You say, "It’s not “guilt by association” to base an opinion on a persons very real and frequent political actions that demonstrate they espouse certain beliefs"

I will simply repeat my previous statements.

You have chosen to attribute views to a person because of your own polarised thought processes.

Riley Gaines campaigns for fairness in sport for women and girls. Because of her personal experience.

You can make all sorts of assumptions about me and what I believe. It is a sign that you cannot produce any evidence to support what you theorise.

But please do keep up with the personal attacks.

"You haven’t even looked up the laws he is supporting/advocating including a constitutional amendment that would give personhood to an unborn child from conception, thereby meaning they have the right to life and banning abortion from conception. Or the law he voted on that would mean American women would have to pay the full costs of abortions as a private procedure, effectively denying access to abortion for most women. Which are listed on his pages that I have linked to. What have you for evidence? Nothing but “I’m well aware of….blah blah blah” with no links and no evidence."

You mean this one?

www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61

"Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act"

"This bill establishes a new criminal offense for performing or attempting to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more."

Oh. I know he doesn't support state paid for abortion and that the burden then falls on charities and the like. I disagree with him about that. And other aspects.

You can keep cycling around and around here. You have made the discussion about a man. You have peddled half truths in your pursuit of polarisation.

"I did not say against, I said questionable or wavering views on abortion and she didn’t say she was prioritising campaigning on transgender issues over abortion, she said protecting womens spaces was worth setting aside even the legal right to an abortion. You should at least have the decency to write what she actually said and not your spin on it."

Er...I said "she said she prioritised campaigning against affirming only treatment over abortion?"

Can you please explain in depth what you perceive as the difference between:

"prioritised campaigning against affirming only treatment over abortion"

and

"protecting womens spaces was worth setting aside even the legal right to an abortion"

Please, keep it all coming.

As opposed to...you posting proof of someone stood next to someone else as evidence of their wrongdoing.

Pretty sure MNHQ asked for this thread to have some decorum a while back. "Don't mean shit" type posts don't help. Unless the aim is to get it deleted for NITS.

Unless the evidence is their actions, because that don’t mean shit to @Helleofabore. She only goes by what people say. And she prefers to cut and paste comments said a decade ago out of context as her evidence instead of what they’re saying today, right now on their own professional webpages.

That is your choice to make. I have no issue with it. This all started with me pointing out correctly that Tucker Carlson has had numerous GC activists on his show and many are pro-life, so the filmmakers by declining to go on TCs show are not passing up on reaching some new untapped audience that has no idea about the transgender issues.

The argument now is that @Helleofabore is peddling a myth that Paul Rand is really a moderate pro choice politician and that Riley Gaines is a prochoice feminist despite her many political actions indicating otherwise.

That’s not what happened and it is in the thread for all to see.

I stated GC activists are fighting for the definition of women to be based on biological sex and therefore all that goes with it such as single sex spaces- toilets/changing rooms/hospital wards, keeping males out of womens prisons, womens sports, diversity hires, and so on.

I was told I was a complete idiot and that none of the above has anything to do with GC activists. I was told that the only thing GC activists want is “equality of opportunity” 🙄 To which I said that’s not the #1 thing that’s being campaigned for, and doubt it’s even on their radar. I mean how ridiculous,…women prisoners want equality of opportunity with TW for the best cell in a woman’s prison? What the fuck? Women want “equal opportunity” with TW for women only jobs as defined by the equally act? Er no, that’s not true.

What is KJK shouting in public squares? “We want Equality of opportunity” fuck no, she’s shouting “TW are men. TM are women.” = the definition of woman is based in biological sex not gender. What does KJK exhort women to do? Challenge any perceived TW in women only spaces.

I posted the Wikipedia link on Gender Critical…and it says what I said.

And then you have posted numerous posts waxing lyrical about me somehow being deliberately prejudiced and spreading misinformation….WTF? By saying what is GC and it is exactly what whole fucking world says is GC as shown on Wiki.

And then you go to LIE and say I said feminists are not advocating for equality of opportunity at all. I never said any such thing, the discussion was about what specifically are GC activists campaigning for? And I answered it honestly and truthfully.

I posted it, it can’t be helped you are too blind to see.

@Helleofabore
I am also well aware he declared he wasn’t advocating to ‘ban’ abortion in his state in quite the manner your posts suggests.

You posted a sentence he said over a decade ago in which he merely states the States should decide on abortion when he was pushing for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. I have posted what is currently in his webpages. He is seeking to ban abortion in his State.

My point is you have conveniently misrepresented Riley Gaines by taking the opposite approach to me and accusing her using the guilt by association tactic.
It’s not “guilt by association” to base an opinion on a persons very real and frequent political actions that demonstrate they espouse certain beliefs. I’m shocked to the core that you refuse to attribute beliefs based on actions and insist on I will continue to not attribute beliefs to a woman where none has been stated. Such naïvety is not something to brag about imho. Because if Kier Starmer said “oh I will protect womens single sex spaces” you’d believe that is what he believes, even if he does the exact opposite by his actions? You must have believed Boris Johnson too then that no party at no10 happened during lockdown and the evidence of his actions is merely people being “guilt by association” assholes. Yeah right. You are so full of 💩

Do you consider the current English abortion laws pro-life? They are within 4 weeks of the laws that Paul was supporting.
Bullshit. You haven’t even looked up the laws he is supporting/advocating including a constitutional amendment that would give personhood to an unborn child from conception, thereby meaning they have the right to life and banning abortion from conception. Or the law he voted on that would mean American women would have to pay the full costs of abortions as a private procedure, effectively denying access to abortion for most women. Which are listed on his pages that I have linked to. What have you for evidence? Nothing but “I’m well aware of….blah blah blah” with no links and no evidence.

Didn’t you also declare Kellie Jay Keen was ‘against abortion’ because she said she prioritised campaigning against affirming only treatment over abortion? I did not say against, I said questionable or wavering views on abortion and she didn’t say she was prioritising campaigning on transgender issues over abortion, she said protecting womens spaces was worth setting aside even the legal right to an abortion. You should at least have the decency to write what she actually said and not your spin on it.

Good question Bernard.

Always good to have evidence of something when making definitive statements about people’s beliefs.

Hey! Did you find any evidence of Tucker Carlson or your Jason chap criticising gender (which would make them ‘gender critical’)?

She doesn't have to be pro choice for me to make common cause with her on this specific issue relating to women's sex based rights to be considered a separate group from males. I feel political purity is a luxury we can't afford at this time. Others feel differently, and that's up to them. But when people go out of their way to be divisive, on any side, it's unhelpful.