Transgender person elected as Deputy Mayor in Sydney

He’s a woman like any other woman in Australia, as is quite obvious from the Giggle/Tickle case. I can’t imagine there will be any situation where you could state otherwise without landing up with accusations of transphobia or even ending up in court. I think the problem lies less with the job role and more with freedom of speech and being able to speak about reality.

Why post this link? A transgender person has been elected to public office. That's it.

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.

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.

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.

Sexist. Not "crazy", sexist.

That is the issue. If you believe we shouldn't be able to criticise sexism just because it comes wrapped up in a Gender package rather than a "Make me a sammich!" T shirt, that is a great demonstration of the problem.

And the sexism. Don't forget the sexism.

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.

Again, we are back to how much we can question 'how much will the individuals personal view affect their political conduct'. Olly may well believe that transwomen are a flavour of men. He may think that transwomen shouldn't use female-only facilities, but would we be able to ask? In principle, anyone should be able to present as they like and stand for public office, but we can't pretend that there isn't a challenge in relation to, for example, transwomen and their interaction with female-only spaces.

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).

If that was the case there would be very few people in public office - take the leader of the USA for example!!

Discrimination isn’t decision making. Saying one thing costs less than something else isn’t discrimination. Not employing a woman because she is of childbearing age and could potentially cost the company more money however would be.

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?

I'm talking about the OP.

I would be wary of him because he is likely to be a TRA. If he turns out to be a user of male single sex provision only, agrees that women should retain their own single sex provision and does not promote the ideology to children, then I have no issue with him in the role. I would have the same issue with any TRA in a similar role whether they are trans or not.

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?

Oh dear

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.

What are their policies and qualifications?

Why is this newsworthy at all?

can we get back to advocating for women please?

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.

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.

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"?

Stop, you're embarrassing yourself now.

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