Republican Congresswoman bring forward Bill to ban transwomen from female facilities in Congress

Man: I have the right to abort my baby, which happens to be in my ex-gf's uterus.

If abortion isn't defined as a woman's sex-based right, or he can claim to be a woman, what stops him from going to court to try to force his ex to terminate? Don't say "common sense": legal systems acknowledge no such thing.

Obama literally campaigned on abortion rights and then didn't even try to secure them. Didn't even try.

Threadreader of that: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1859497529060229474.html

Yowch...

Apparently Mace has learnt nothing from being raped.

Operation let them speak has never been more effective.

The Democrats also did not provide a united front. Some refused to support Kamala because of her stance on the conflict in the Middle East - Rachida Tlaib, for example. The protest campaigns for Palestine seemed to be an important factor for a subset of voters.
Probably Ms Tlaib got the feedback from her own voter base and chose her own political career over that of winning the presidency.
I thought it would have been smarter for the Democrats to first make sure Harris gets elected, and then they can try influencing her foreign policy.
Now they have a Republican president and majority, the main motto of foreign policy (on all topics) will probably be "what do I care". So the Democratic non-endorsers lost out on the main goal, but they elevated their own profile with their stance.

The SJWs are very keen on racial equity.

Sex equity, not so much.

Indeed, it takes a moment to realise that giving women equality/equal rights with men would remove (or fail to provide) things like maternity leave because men don’t need maternity leave.

Women need specific rights/legal protections based on our biology being different to male biology. Our society/public life has been built around and to accommodate the male lifecycle, therefore women need accommodations to be able to participate fully in a society built around men’s needs. And we need these accommodations to be legally required or else businesses and organisations won’t bother to provide them.

And this is the issue when someone has only a blunt understanding of equality. The rights that we need as female people is about equity not equality as a flat concept.

Perhaps it is confusing for some when they see the word ‘additional’. Because they only seem additional from a superficial perspective when what they are there to enable is fundamental equality. Equality of opportunity for instance. However, people who cannot understand this will grasp on to the word ‘additional’ to weaponise it.

Indeed!

And people say such a vulnerable, most oppressed minority who wouldn't harm a fly.

And people say, why aren't you on Twitter?

More abuse from TRAs.

https://x.com/marycatedelvey/status/1860384194351812937?t=k659hWLtZ-2Ifk-IqJZkYg&s=19

It may not seem like it now, but allowing each State to decide on its own abortion laws may turn out to have been the best possible stable outcome in the context of the debate in the USA. Roe Vs Wade was always in danger of being overturned and it could have been replaced by Draconian federal law prohibiting all termination for any reason. There will be some Republican states in which there is room for a compromise. Some Republican legislators would at least allow termination in the case of rape, for example.
Some pro-choice advocates want the right to terminate up to birth. I don't know how prevalent that view is, but that's as extreme as opposing termination under any circumstances. Giving up on that would help.
If the two sides talked more instead of painting each other as Godless baby murderers or sadistic torturers of women with nothing in between, there might be solutions in some states.

Brava again.

Just to repeat for the ones at the back of the room:
In order to have the opportunity to participate equally in public life, we need additional sex-based rights.

I would add: these rights are not privileges, nor is the need for them temporary. Even if sexism and misogyny disappear overnight, we are always going to need additional, sex-based rights because we will always be women, not men.

Brava ArabellaScott!

Reclaiming single sex toilets is the beginning of the fightback against GII, which is fundamentally destructive of the understanding of women as a sex class and therefore of women having sex-based rights.

And a propos of the right to choose - at State level, many women vote in favour, unaware that they are also voting for gender identity to supersede sex in the constitution of their state. (This is taken from a Kara Dansky interview and she named NY as one of the states this was true of.) Dentons playbook style.
So the Democrats are making women pay for the right to choose by effectively giving up all their sex-based rights and protections. And not even telling them.

Some people are saying that trans issues, with all the associated implications for women as a whole, are deciding factors for them. That’s a personal choice.

I agree with them that, if you can’t be clear what a woman is, if you accept that some “women” are actually men, then all women’s rights are compromised.

'Equality' would mean all spaces were mixed sex, all sports were mixed sex, there would be no positive discrimination and no way to treat men and women differently in law.

Women's rights are in addition to basic human rights. Feminists sought and won these rights because women face disadvantage because of their sex.

It's the basis of 'equity' - addressing disadvantage.

What libfemmery and genderist arguments do is based on the idea of 'equality'. Which sounds fine until you think about it for five minutes.

Yes.

For women to have rights, we must be a category that is defined clearly as distinct from men.

If we don't have a word that defines 'women' as separate from and different to men, then we can have no rights written in law that protect women.

If the definition of women means men then men will have the right to an abortion, or not as the case may be. So actually being able to define 'woman' is indeed an important point of law.

I got addicted to US politics podcasts before the election. One of which was Majority Report. Their Co host Emma Vriggeland was on Piers Morgan recently, having a meltdown about transphobia. She made a jibe about single sex toilets 🚻 being Separate But Equal in a reference to apartheid.

Sounds a bit disrespectful to me. Like all the stuff about trans genocide when we are in the middle of a real one. But back on the podcast her colleagues were gushing with praise. They thought the apartheid comparison was so apt. The comments were no better alas. It is quite depressing for us old lefties. The Democrats need to regain consciousness or Trump's term will be followed by 8 years of JD Vance.

I don’t see anyone who has done that either. The definition of woman and not undermining that underpins all women’s rights though. So protecting that is important.

No, but a heck of a lot of people are saying here that they are more important.

Men in a position to change laws that affect all women and girls, who want access to female spaces for reasons we are not allowed to state, are most definitely the men we need to fear. Especially those that take trophy photos in women's toilets.

I don't know much about US politics. But I agree with the woman saying that women need single sex spaces.

People who try to argue with whataboutery are going to lose.

I don't doubt there are other issues on which I would disagree with Nancy Mace.

But if you're telling me that I must accept that men can be women and use women's spaces, then I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to accept anything else that you say.

It is foundational. It's a matter of honesty, integrity, common sense, rationality, fairness, justice and truth.

That is why this issue is losing elections for the left.

We can discuss disagreements on the details of abortion law, or the intricacies of state politics, the US.constitution, etc.

But I cannot and will not accept that men can become women or that women must be forced to accept males in their spaces. Not ever.