Transphobic US senator was sex trafficker.

[DonnaBe]

He got 15 years. Is it enough?

deadstate.org/ex-gop-senator-who-voted-for-anti-trans-bathroom-bill-gets-15-years-for-child-sex-trafficking/

Lang because there is no answer, which everyone not in the denial of wokeness knows. So instead they put their fingers in their ears and whistle a merry tune....

Safeguarding 101 - do not mirror tactics used by abusers even if you are a nice, well-meaning person who wants to help. Because you make it impossible for a child to tell the difference between an abuser and you.

None of this stuff is hard. All of this stuff is obvious.

No activist will answer me. The NSPCC won't answer me.

Donna

As the American poster above observed, this guy seems to have supported the "bathroom bill" because that was good for his career.

If your purpose was to remind us that not-all-men-supporting-the-bathroom-bill-are-decent-people then absolutely: point taken. But I'm not sure if it takes us much further.

There are some issues that do need to be raised and if you start another thread with a more straightforward title I for one will be happy to engage.

Are we really being asked to accept that 50% of the worlds population is deliberately using sex segregated spaces not for privacy or as a risk assessment, not because of biological differences between the sexes, but in order to oppress 1% of the worlds population?

"oh I think this bull identifies as a cow. Let's just put it in with all the heifers, after all, sex is irrelevant and only a political categorisation (and as we know cows are apolitical) and so nothing can come of it, eh?"

I can't help laughing at the idea of inclusive cows. But I wouldn't like to be the farmer who tries to milk a bull...

Upstart

Yes indeed. It's entirely "logical" that a rugby playing woman doesn't want a male-bodied person playing against her because she wants to oppress them

Are we really being asked to accept that 50% of the worlds population is deliberately using sex segregated spaces not for privacy or as a risk assessment, not because of biological differences between the sexes, but in order to oppress 1% of the worlds population?

The vast majority of the population have a shared understanding of sex.

They may use gender as an alternative word (likely euphemistically)

They believe (with reasonable cause) that toilets, wards, prisons etc are single sex /same sex.

If such profound changes to society are to be made whereby biological sex is disregarded in favour of gender identity, then all members of society should participate in discussion about such a momentous shift.

If this shift is understood and embraced only by specific groups specific to some political groups / university societies or academic disciplines / age / gender identity / users of specific social media platforms etc then those who are outside these groups are disenfranchised.

I would be interested to know what categories the OP does want to use.

Is it gender? Or is it none?

The OP wants to use a category that is identifiable, unverifiable and completely subjective and can be made up on the spot, dispensed with, changed or disappeared in a heart beat?

Or if it's no categories, how are you going to identify the people who are subjected to misogyny and sexism? Or prostate cancer? Or maternity leave? How will schools decide how many sanitory bins they need?

I suspect the OP would like to decide categories based on all the things they personally want.

What, you're not familiar with Einstein's famous Theory of Tinkerbell?

Kittens, I don't know what you're drinking, but my God you're on fire lately. You've got me being Snorty McSnort Face for daaaays.

I would like to hear the step by step, logical thought process that says that acknowledging a person’s sex is oppression. Break it down for me. And how sex is unnatural

tinkerbell AAK

I don’t accept how you chose to categorise. And I think it’s artificial. People don’t think like that. When you meet someone, do you demand to see genitals, birth certificate or chromosome analysis before you decide which pronoun to use? Most of us don’t.

No, we don't - because in our sexually dimorphic species it's entirely obvious, it's 100% natural. Small children almost unerringly can correctly tell whether a stranger is male or female. Other mammals can too, of course. It doesn't require thought, there simply are two basic types of human being.

People don’t think like that. When you meet someone, do you demand to see genitals, birth certificate or chromosome analysis before you decide which pronoun to use?

This is so funny to me.

If people truly couldn't recognise the opposite sex, there'd be a lot of problems. A real lot.

Not only that, people personally know what their own sex is.

It's mindbogglingly irritating that when other people go out of their way to use artificial hormones, surgery, different clothing, wigs and make up, etc to disguise their sex that everyone else is suddenly told that it's their fault for recognising any problems that might arise.

It's not my fault, love.

My argument is you’ve deliberately chosen an unusual categorisation so you can go on to argue that nobody can change category

Am boggled that sexual dimorphism can be described as unusual categorisation.

If we can all change category at will, can I be a transwoman? If not, why not?

Am boggled that sexual dimorphism can be described as unusual categorisation.

And that you're deliberately choosing it so you can exclude people!

🤣

Datun

Not only that, people personally know what their own sex is.

That’s exactly the point. I know I’m a woman.

My argument is you’ve deliberately chosen an unusual categorisation so you can go on to argue that nobody can change category.

Sex, eh?
An unusual categorisation?

What would you say are our society's more usual categories?

• All the people who wore skirts today vs all the people who wore trousers?
• All the people who wore high heels today, vs all the people who didn't?
• All the people who carried a handbag today vs all the people who carried something else?
• All the people who did something classed as 'masculine behaviour' by today's stereotypes, vs all the people who did something classed as 'feminine behaviour'?
• All the tall people vs all the small people?
• All the left handed people vs all the right handed people?

Exactly what 'more usual categories' should have been picked to be helpful to your argument that people can change categories?

To be fair, for 100s of years, anyone of either sex who stepped out of the stereotypes expected of their sex meant eyebrows raised, or much worse.

I felt lucky enough to grow up in a time where this was being challenged, to an extent.

Even though sex is unchangeable, behaviours, dress and expectations started to be less tethered to sex categories.

Now it appears there's a backlash and an attempt to shove us all back into boxes, unless we sign up to the choke-hold of 'gender identity'.

"Are we really being asked to accept that 50% of the worlds population is deliberately using sex segregated spaces not for privacy or as a risk assessment, not because of biological differences between the sexes, but in order to oppress 1% of the worlds population?"

OF COURSE THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING

Women are the cause of all problems for everyone always ever because we're just naturally like total bastards.

You’ve chosen to categorise people in a specific way. Under your system, it’s obvious that people cannot change from being in one category to the other.

My argument is you’ve deliberately chosen an unusual categorisation so you can go on to argue that nobody can change category.

LOLOL "unusual categorisation"

Not only that, people personally know what their own sex is

That’s exactly the point. I know I’m a woman

And so we return to the great unanswerable question de nos jours.

What, then, is a woman? Using a definition that includes you, (who feel you are a woman because you feel your gender identity is female, but presumably have a male biological makeup) and me (who does not have a female gender identity, but who has all the necessary biology that makes a woman), but excludes my dear old dad (who is a man).

Do you think we should have all spaces as unisex, OP?

Hi Donna,

When you say "I know I'm a woman" though - I think you're asserting a belief. Like me believing that Jesus is my personal saviour. It's quite typical for Jesus' many followers to say "I know Jesus is my saviour".

Whereas when I say "I know I'm a woman" it's more of a "there aint nothing I can do about it - I accept it" kind of thing.

.... I have a sibling and slews of cousins who do, absolutely, "know" that Jesus loves them and is their personal saviour. I have another friend who "knows" that a wafter turns to the body of Christ through the sacrament of transsubstantiation.

It would be rude and discourteous to butt into their conversations reminding them that their knowledge is in fact a belief. But that doesn't make it a fact that Jesus is their personal saviour.

speakingwoman, as a believing Catholic, I can only echo that. I value the right to believe as I do about transubstantiation. But I see clearly that I have no place trying to set it into law that others be compelled to act as though they also believed the Host was literally God, like enforcing genuflection or something.

Believe as you wish. You are free to do so. You are not free to bend the culture around your personal belief.

There is something weirdly fascinating about this level of Orwellian reversal.

Yes. I always think I've heard the best one, but am constantly surprised.

Person with a penis is a pervert
Not sure how that connects to Transwomen?

That’s exactly the point. I know I’m a woman

How do you know you are Donna?

When you meet someone, do you demand to see genitals, birth certificate or chromosome analysis before you decide which pronoun to use? Most of us don’t.

The vast majority of times, the evidence of OUR OWN EYES is quite enough, thanks. This opinion is supported by my having seen many profile pictures and selfies of both MTFs and FTMs on social media. No chromosome analysis is required.