Transgender person elected as Deputy Mayor in Sydney

I'd be more.embarrassed that people thought this would fly somewhere I am.known to frequent. We dont all share the same sense of shame though

Except you will need to address this man as she and her, and agree that "women like her" belong in women's spaces and sports, and should recieve prizes, scholarships and positions reserved for actual women.
A man who asks that people believe he is a woman is dishonest by definition and will do nothing to support women's sex based rights. That means he is working against the best interests of 50% of the population the 50% most in need of sex segregated spaces and facilities.
I will not give him a chance because when we are "asked" to give up our spaces, sports services and facilities to men who wish they were us, we lose.
It is the "reasonable" imposters that soften our boundaries because people use the exception as the rule. It is coercion and it stinks.

Do.you name call ever though? Or suggest women who disagree with you are stupid or "handmaidens" or must be men anything like that?
Do you call out others that do those things in the name of "the movement"?

No, which is somewhat warming. However, is that because certain folks knew the OP was "a TRA"? Would it have gone down differently if the OP was known to be GC?

I suggest most people who are long standing posters here are not looking for a " bun fight" but instead are committed to pushing back against trans ideology in all its many guises. I don't come here for a scrap or to name call, I come here because i want to be a part of the movement that challenges it. I come here because this board is a great source of information, and a place of support.

Stop, you're embarrassing yourself now.

No, which is somewhat warming. However, is that because certain folks knew the OP was "a TRA"? Would it have gone down differently if the OP was known to be GC?

I suggest most people who are long standing posters here are not looking for a " bun fight" but instead are committed to pushing back against trans ideology in all its many guises. I don't come here for a scrap or to name call, I come here because i want to be a part of the movement that challenges it. I come here because this board is a great source of information, and a place of support.

That is a fair and interesting point. Terminology certainly matters. I have seen TIM, as in Trans Identified Male, used. I think that’s a whole separate debate though, in terms of whether a person who identifies in this way should be permitted to hold a public position. There would have to be a societal shift away from the current terminology (a good thing, I reckon.)

With regard to a point made by other posters, I agree that recording this man as a woman in the council would have the serious consequence of misrepresenting the male/female balance, which I definitely don’t agree with. But the OP plopped on here with a title and a link, with absolutely no context. No explanation as to why they had posted. Had they given a reason, that could have been debated. Otherwise it’s just someone who is pissed off with a trans person in Australia for reasons unknown. Or perhaps they don’t give a toss either way and just wanted to start a bun fight, which is what usually happens on these threads.

Oh I don't doubt that the hard of thinking some contributors might believe this was welcome, but as you noticed ("are you surprised that more members arent [sic] agreeing with you") it really didn't get that type of reception.

Yes theyve likely posted it because they believe this view would be welcome here. It doesmt matter if it is a reverse of sorts, it's because FWR seems like the kind of place that would agree trans people shouldn't have this (or any) job.

You might want to check out the OP's other posts across the board, if you want an insight into why they posted it.

I'll give you a tiny hint, they reply 'well said' quite a lot to the resident TRAs. Can you work out what they were trying to do or would you like more help?

I'm talking about the OP.

If this wasn't an environment where these views were thought to be welcome, OP wouldn't have posted it.

@Catcentral are.you.surprised that more members arent agreeing with you on this given the usual tone and content of the posts?

Which arguments?

Can you please be clear exactly what you have issues with other people saying rather than this vague handwaving that tars everyone with some unspecified "says nasty things" brush?

I've explained exactly why I consider trans people to have a fundamentally sexist worldview. It's not a weird prejudice. There is direct and obvious link between the two.

I do not see how basing my assessment of someone's view of women based on their adoption of a transgender identity is somehow less well reasoned than basing my assessment of, oh, someone's view of immigration based on their membership of Reform.

There are a range of views expressed on this thread, indicative of the wide range of views and values of the 'regular members' (whoever they are).

@sanluca humans discriminate on all sorts of things every single day, big and small - it's called decision making.

I'd suggest a candidate being unable to differentiate truth from fiction does make them unsuited to public office.

The fact that people can post these arguments and expect to get support here is indicative of the wider atmosphere and the shared values of the regular members.

The fact that people can post these arguments and expect to get support here is indicative of the wider atmosphere and the shared values of the regular members.

It's legitimate to have a problem with policies which are detremental to women, or the council claiming 50:50 representation.

But if your claiming someones unfit to stand only because they're trans, IMO it's a bold look which crosses the line from gender critical to anti trans, rather than pro-woman and it absolutely will be snatched up as representative of 'what GCs think'

I recognise that for someone to be 'trans' there is often a denial of a fundamental biological truth (hence some posters saying 'they're liars') - but that's not universal and the question is the same as any other politician - how much will the individuals personal view affect their political conduct.

It's legitimate to have a problem with policies which are detremental to women, or the council claiming 50:50 representation.

But if your claiming someones unfit to stand only because they're trans, IMO it's a bold look which crosses the line from gender critical to anti trans, rather than pro-woman and it absolutely will be snatched up as representative of 'what GCs think'

I recognise that for someone to be 'trans' there is often a denial of a fundamental biological truth (hence some posters saying 'they're liars') - but that's not universal and the question is the same as any other politician - how much will the individuals personal view affect their political conduct.

Some of the arguments in this thread are starting to sound like "I have to hire someone for this job but I'll never consider a trans person for it because they are by definition delusional/crazy." Those same arguments used to be made by employers in the past when they refused to hire women (as well as by voters when they refused to support female candidates),

As I said before I will vote for Katiyln Jenner over AOC any day of the week as they knows what a woman is, them being transgender is irrelevant, only their policies matter . And I will consider hiring a trans person for the job if they are the best candidate.