The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

You are not the only one that can sometimes get " irked".

It's not a belief. It is a system that works.....which you would only know if you were familiar with it. and had employed it regularly. You can believe, or disbelieve, what you like about it, of course.

And none of what you say above is what I do, or am doing now. As I've said I keep it to myself. my friends family and colleagues. That you cannot cope with my explanations for how I see it and use it, is your issue.

I refuse to sit, by, though, and have people dismiss something so central in my life and work - without any real understanding of it themselves.

Again the Dems face a dilema here: if they see issues with how illegal migrants are being deported, what do they do? Their only recourse is probably through the courts. But the optics of fundraising to help illegal migrants is problematic in its own right for them now because of identity politics and how the well is now totally poisoned...

That's the case if Trump's team has any common sense at all and deports illegal immigrants who can be presented as "bad apples" meaning that the Democrats have the option of either going to the courts on principle or waiting until those deported can be spun as "nice folks".

I don't 'believe' in it either. It is a device; a tool - which you have to learn to understand, then use. It's an actual body of knowledge, not a theoretical concept.

Re: vagueness on policy.

Yes he is, in the same way that Brexit didn't outline an actual plan. But Leave actively went for issues that were about grievance and deliberately let the voters decide in their own minds what the policy would entail.

Trump regularly talks about doing x to one audience and then doing exactly the opposite y to another. And then denying both at one point or another. But he's got the relevant quote out thats repeated on social media, and in a world which doesn't fact check and only hears what it wants to hear, these contridactions don't matter in an election cycle. The rebuke and the deep dive aren't repeated on social media in the relevant echo chambers - they are only repeated in opposite channels.

Trump tailors his message for each any every audience in this way.

However with regards to immigration, I do note one comment he's made as its notable for us - think about target audiences here.

Trump has said he is looking at Rwanda as an option for these deportations. Its an interesting comment as its absoluetely NOT aimed at Americans but solidly Brits and Germans and other Europeans because its a topic of conversation in European circles not American ones.

This comment demonstrates an understanding/awareness beyond America/an American audience which isn't 'stupid' in the way we perhaps sometimes percieve Trump.

I'd argue this is 'soft power foreign policy' in action. We are likely to see a lot more of it. Its something thats not great for a Labour government in the longer term. Our next election is due the year after the next American one so our election cycle means we will be directly influenced by the next American election cycle (which may well be not as democratic as previous ones). Its something Labour should be thinking about hard. The timing is about as bad as it gets for them.

FWIW, over immigration, I don't think its in Trump's interests to go hard initially in policy making for hispanics who are in work and established in the community - even if their documentation isn't necessarily in order. He'll want the cheapness and optics of being seen to be 'decisive' and 'doing something', rather than costly investment in state clear outs of 'undocumenteds'. Of course how this plays out on the ground with individuals who have grievances against someone hispanic may not be so nice (think about snitches in authoritarian regimes who target anyone they don't like and use the system against them). I don't think Trump will be interested in dirtying his hands by going really heavy handed at first. He will go for easy, cheap wins. And turn a blind eye to less pleasant stuff on the ground stating 'state automony'. He has plenty of followers to do the dirty work for him.

Again the Dems face a dilema here: if they see issues with how illegal migrants are being deported, what do they do? Their only recourse is probably through the courts. But the optics of fundraising to help illegal migrants is problematic in its own right for them now because of identity politics and how the well is now totally poisoned...

The other thing about religious believers is we don't pretend our religious beliefs are scientific facts rather than religious beliefs. We know what myths are, and that myths can be truth without being fact. Usually - there is the occasional young-earth creationist, but they're a pretty fringe minority and mostly in America or Northern Ireland.

Your post reminded me of this news story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wryxyljglo

Well, that is the problem with this stuff, isnt’ it? Legislatures have evenmade laws which disbenefit the female half of the population at the behest of those pushing this anti-science bunkum.

Now, I ask you, where are the laws upholding people’s rights to ‘identify’ as endangered bats? Environmentalists who wish to stop developments would have a field day. Install themselves somewhere, and nobody could develop the area. I’m sure many of these Dr. Frankenstein like surgeons would be happy to do some little cosmetic tweak which would ‘literally turn them into bats’, and the insurance company cover it.

plase marking

The cruelty is the point,' Democrat Rep. Becca Balint, a co-chair of the Equality Caucus, told Axios.

The honesty is the point.

Religious believers, including Christians, hear people sneering about 'the sky fairy' and 'imaginary friends' all the time.

Exactly, and they are often the soi-distant "progressives".

I am very glad that some people are blunt, because it gives permission to others. Giving this belief legitimacy is how we got here. Pronouns are how we got here. Pretending that these males are a type of woman to make them feel better is how we got here.

Arguing that one faith is superior to another seems pointless to me. They are just beliefs, not facts and they have no place in the modern state. I really don’t care what anyone believes, as long as they don’t try to force anyone else to believe in it or participate in its rituals, or crimialise and demonise those who don’t believe.

Religious believers, including Christians, hear people sneering about 'the sky fairy' and 'imaginary friends' all the time. Also lots of other stuff intended to be offensive. Water off a duck's back. And if it is 'imaginary; and 'made up' so what, it's been there for millennia (parts of the Old Testament are more than 2,600 years old) and religion is a part of most people's lives, worldwide.

Unlike 'gender' which was invented about 40 years ago by academics and started to leak into ordinary life in the anglosphere around the turn of the millennium.

I dunno. You can have a belief in a Gender Identity (with claims that it then strangely makes you a different biological sex, in the heel of the hunt) all you want. It is rather like saying you have three heads, but other people can only see one. Or multiple personality disorder gives rise to there being three of you biologically. That would be fun for any prosecutions. It wasn’t me guv. It would be a travesty of us other two were locked up because of what Jimmy did. Well, it does not seem so far fetched when the law appears to go softer on John when he says he is really ‘Mary’. Diddums! And then sends John aka ‘Mary’ to a womens’ prison. Even when he is a sexual offender.

Or anywhere else where John declaring he has turned into ‘Mary’ is accepted as the reality and it would have a chilling effect on women’s lives, or make them uncomfortable.

I fully agree about the difference.

Obviously this did used to happen in the past e.g. people being burned at the stake for heresy.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how that kind of approach lands. Thankfully this wasn't necessary for secular societies to depriotise law making based on beliefs e.g. shops now open on Sundays.

This post illustrates what I mean about how we talk about other people's beliefs.

It can indeed be dismissive.

I don't believe in astrology but I do believe in ghosts. I am used to the eyerolls and I just suck it up. But part of me is rather miffed that even my own family (husband and kids) just dismiss it as me being odd.

The difference is that people in the US have not been lectured to and sneered at over the past decade by Christians calling them bigots.

People have been treated with contempt for years by those who adopted a morally superior position and I don't think people in general are going to be exercised over blunt and not tip-toey speaking. Even if it's unkind.

Playing make believe dress up doesn't mean you should be allowed in women's private spaces,' she wrote on X.

Blimey. Obviously there are people who genuinely hold a belief that everyone has a gender identity.

I wonder how this will land. Imagine the equivalent about a different belief that is genuinely held by people...

"Playing make-believe that god exists and praying to him is like hanging out your stocking as an adult and wondering why nothing has been put in it on Christmas Day".

Even though I'm an atheist, I wouldn't say that to a Christian because it is mocking their belief and I don't see the value in doing this. In fact I think it's pretty offensive, despite the fact that I don't believe in god myself. Referring to it as playing make-believe suggests that they lack the intelligence to understand what's real and what's not. Likewise, I wouldn't describe someone's belief that they have a gender identity and the way that they express their belief (e.g. by wearing a dress) as "playing make-believe".

This comes back to language policing and the importance of clarity. I'm not saying that everyone should address this like I do (I know that some people on this board don't like the way that I approach this because they've told me so on other threads, despite me saying that I know and value the multiple ways in which this issue is addressed 🤦‍♀️), but I do think it's important to keep in mind that not every biological male who identifies as a woman is from Málaga Airport. Even when being clear that biological males shouldn't be using facilities for women.

I don't know.

I'd agree he's quite vague on policy.

However, as I see it his supporters aren't just randomly or hopefully saying he doesn't "really" mean what Democrat supporters claim. They think that a lot of Democrats are being deliberate in misrepresenting him on issues.

For example, his Hispanic supporters don't think he "doesn't really mean" he is going to deport everyone Hispanic. They think it's just a complete misrepresentation to say that in the first place, why would anyone think talking about stopping illegal border crossings would mean somehow getting rid of legal immigrants,much less people who have been in the US for generations? That seems like quite an unjustified interpretation.

I'm curious what you specifically see as the contrary things his supporters are ignoring?

Go on Donald. You know you want to.

Ironically, a male bladder is bigger and without having had surgery the chances of a male getting 'caught short' and much much lower than females, particularly ones who have given birth.

Because biology.

This isn't the argument you think it is.

Lots of religions have wisdoms and teachings that are meaningful to people. Buddhism in particular is the one that sticks in my mind. And people swear by superstitions. One of the biggest troubles with astrology is that it has been used by a great many charlatans to exploit vulnerable individuals and to fleece them for cash.

I'm sure your belief is important to you and gives you something, but its still a belief. Fair plan to you. Crack on. You do you. But if there was something more to it, we've had many many years to prove this but we've not found anything to support it so I very much lean towards it being a bunch of beliefs which fulfil the human need for something to believe in. Nothing more.

What erks me here is your choice of conversation to get the huff over people saying they don't believe in astrology.

You can't seriously be saying, particularly after the conversation weve had over the last few days that, astrology is real and we should take it seriously as fact but we shouldn't take genderwoo as real and its a complete load of made up stuff and its offensive that we put astrology into the same box.

Its fine to have a belief if it works for you and you think it improves your life so long as you don't expect others to also believe it and then berate them for thinking its a load of made up nonsense AND you fully acknowledge that there are a lot of people who do use astrology to pedal a load of made up nonsense and don't delve into these years of experience learning the art, because they just see it as a quick opportunity for a grift.

I respect your right to believe in astrology but really, please don't start with telling everyone else how wrong they are and how disrespectful they are for thinking its nonsense and has major issues with individuals using it to exploit the emotional vulnerabilities of others for personal gain because they've been manipulated or convinced by what they've been told and this had then led them to make decisions that they would not otherwise take and may be against their own self interest...

This really is the wrong thread for trying to convince people that we should accept astrology as real and then take umbridge with people who don't share that opinion.

Astrology is a grifters paradise and the number of 'true beneficiaries' is small compared to the number of people who get sucked into it and potentially harmed for other reasons. A bit like something else we know.

Its a fair comparison.

(I spent quite a lot of time looking at full charts based on time of birth etc in my teens. I still have a book or two knocking about somewhere. I really do think it is woo woo even at that level. It was a nice bit of timewasting fun for me but still definitely woo woo which plays into psychological pre-existing bias a lot of the time).

I hope some male representatives let him know he's welcome in the male toilets if he gets caught short.

I very much hope that a journalist asks him why he is so desperate for access to unconsenting women that his own personal bathroom isn't enough? Republican women have made it quite clear they want single sex spaces and do not consent - why do their needs and wants come below his? There are more of them!