The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

The last time I was sexually harrassed in a bathroom it was by another woman. Perhaps we should only have single-stall bathrooms.

This started long before Trump.

You don't have to do anything you don't care to. If you like to be perceived as rude, that's your choice.

Goodness, why did they have the opportunity to court feminists? What could have happened to make some left wing women think Trump was a better option?

So do you not use public toilets?

Naive to believe this. The links are clear. White supremacists saw an opportunity to court feminists and took it.

This.

No one can stop you perceiving anyone however you perceive them. If you're asked to please refer to someone in a certain way and you don't? I personally think it reflects on your manners, but that's just me.

Why should I have to lie? It doesn't reflect on my manners, it reflects on your naivety.

I'm not sure where the impression is coming from that I don't appreciate this approach. Even though it's not the approach I take, I've always said how much I value this style as well.

You're frequently criticising it. That's where "the impression is coming from".

I put it in the same box as not assuming a woman is pregnant 😅

No one can stop you perceiving anyone however you perceive them. If you're asked to please refer to someone in a certain way and you don't? I personally think it reflects on your manners, but that's just me.

It's entirely coherent within a Christian theological framework, which has an extremely deep and sophisticated philosophical tradition that's been active for 2000 years.

Which is perhaps what a pp was trying to get at by pointing out that systems like Christianity aren't perhaps a great comparison to something like gender ideology which can't even tell us with any real authority what it thinks gender is actually rooted in or what it is.

There are a lot of examples of nasty men using whatever cover is available in order to gain some kind of sexual thrill and access to victims.

Pretty sure we re all aware of many instances of this kind of thing.

Equally valid and equally nonsensical.

Christian ideology is quite incoherent e.g. it's a biological impossibility for a virgin to give birth to a child.

So we should hold the door open, welcome them in and vilify anyone who says otherwise?

You spend an awful lot of time saying how everyone's approach is needed, but also criticising people's bluntness, which rather suggests you think the mild approach is the correct one. On that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm suggesting both approaches are needed. Blunt and mild. Each gets engagement from different people, each puts off different people. There is no "right" way.

Someone posted one of the responses to Nancy Mace on the FWR thread about the toilet proposal.
x.com/repnancymace/status/1858917861797904700

This is great. 49k likes so far. When I said I'd like to see how her "playing make-believe" approach was going, this is the kind of engagement that shows people are liking what she says. Obviously the likes are for a different post but it's just as hard-hitting from a "reality slap" perspective. She's pulling no punches.

I'm not sure where the impression is coming from that I don't appreciate this approach. Even though it's not the approach I take, I've always said how much I value this style as well.

Have we got to BINGO yet?

I think we're missing 'oh but let's not bother trying to prevent the trauma and pain of sexual assault because women and girls aren't really human and men's wants matter more there are laws against it so women can go through the double trauma of prosecuting after the fact'

Th idea that all "belief "systems that aren't physically observable are equally valid seems a bit of a stretch.

Gender ideology is quite incoherent.

Not true. Used to be that if men tried to go into women's single sex spaces then you could complain and have them removed without being called a bigot. It's had a chilling effect. Plus many policies now say spaces are mixed sex even if they're not labelled as such. And we know mixed sex spaces have far higher rates of sex crimes against women and children.

You could say that about burglars, but I bet you lock your door all the same.

Why do you do that?

Also, for the record, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any link between white supremacists and women's rights activists

Simply the latest poor effort to slur women standing up for women's rights.

Sex offenders won't be bothered if trans women aren't allowed in bathrooms. Sex offenders will just go in regardless.

There's a good chance that the Democrats won't learn the lesson from this election. The denial and gaslighting is strong and might win out.

Maybe they'll need to be disappointed by the electorate again before it sinks in and there can be a realignment.

It's also not necessarily an issue for voters on it's own but it's the Dems showing themselves as untrustworthy liars who are willing enforce obvious untruths in an authoritarian, undemocratic way that's the issue. I suspect this is the issue for a lot of men.

They're not affected directly by loss of women's rights and safeguarding for children (though they may well care about their wives and children) but they do care about being talked down to by someone who is trying to enforce Orwellian 2+2=5 newspeak. That's not democratic at all.

Most people know as a matter of fact that men are stronger than women (the reason why there even is a female category in sport) and humans can't change sex.

Who cares if only a small percentage of people are concerned about this, eh?

In the context of an election where the margin of victory is usually a couple of percent.

What lesson should a sensible political party take from that for next time?