Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Elizabeth Warren

81 replies

Tootsweets23 · 14/01/2020 11:42

Didn't see this posted anywhere else, apologies if I've missed it.

Democrats candidate Elizabeth Warren wants to stop putting trans women in male prisons. To be added to her plan to read trans murder victims in the rose garden each week (guess can't do female murder victims as there would be no time left to do any actual presidenting).

I have the fear. If the democrats chose a candidate who is batshit on this issue they will lose to Trump as this position is so out of step with the general population.

mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1216533068296704000

OP posts:
MsMcWibble · 15/01/2020 12:40

A friend of mine did one of those ancestry things. He chose an American firm to do it as an american friend recommended them.
His results came back as having a small percentage of Native American. He's as British as you can get.
I think they add it in as a default.

Mockers2020Vision · 15/01/2020 12:50

Warren's refusal to shake Sanders hand last night was not a good look.

RadicalFern · 15/01/2020 13:20

Though I think the reason she wouldn't shake his hand is because he has refused to condemn the words of one of his campaign field officers who said that Warren's supporters were all “hung up on vaginas” instead of voting for the best policies.

RadicalFern · 15/01/2020 13:29

(Also, isn't that sort of comment just the epitome of lefty dudebro-ism? It makes me nauseous just how many disgusting misogynists are around living off their woke credit)

Goosefoot · 15/01/2020 14:24

I'd hardly call Sanders woke. I'm also not necessarily happy when political types are pushed to "condemn" sentiments expressed by their workers/supporters that aren't considered of the moment.

Are a lot of Warren supporters hung up on her being a woman? I think there is certainly a group who are, like there was with Clinton. I see a lot of posts by American women saying what amounts to they will vote for her because she is a woman and it's time to get a woman in. And the language is no different that saying some people are hung up on who has a penis, maybe not what you ought to say on the radio but it gets the point across, I see worse here daily.
It seems like unnecessary hyperbole to me, and it may even be inaccurate, but in no way worth condemning and I think the drive to condemn in that way is not so far from the urge to control speech.

Endymion1 · 15/01/2020 16:07

Nancy Drawn, I completely agree with you. Thank you for your comment. In addition, I see Elizabeth Warren’s plan to read trans murder victims in the rose garden each week to be a positive. Trans murder victims are likely to be victims of hate crimes and calling attention to hate crimes of any form I feel is a positive and will be seen that way by Democratic voters and people likely to vote for a Democrat. As to stop putting trans women in male prisons that does not mean that they would be placed among women prisoners. There are close to 500 trans prisoners in Federal prisons and they could be put in their own faculty, which is a good compromise. More importantly, based on the behavior of Republican voters and Republican leaning voters they (Republicans) would like to turn things back to when white males ran the government, as Republicans vote predominately for white males. The maximum number of Republican women elected to congress was 30 in 2005 compared to 52 Democratic women in the same year. Since then the number of Republican women in congress decreased to 22 while at the same time the number of Democratic women increased to 105. This current congress has the record number of women due to the Democratic party. This is also the case in regard to minorities. Currently there are 53 black Democrats in congress compared to 2 black Republicans, 35 Hispanic Democrats compared to 8 Republicans, 17 Asian/Pacific Islander Democrats compared to zero Republican, 10 LGBTQ Democrats compared to zero Republican, 32 Jewish Democrats compared to 3 Republican, 3 Muslin Democrats compared to zero Republican, 2 Buddhist Democrats compared to zero Republican, 3 Hindu Democrats compared to zero Republican, 2 Unitarian Democrats compared to zero Republican. The Democratic party is not only the hope of Women for the future, but the hope of minorities for the future. I want the United States government to move in the direction of representing the whole diverse nation and not just white males who are less than half the population. Democrats vote for a candidate no matter what group the candidate belongs to, while Republicans predominately vote for white males. As to Elizabeth Warren saying she had Native American ancestry she was telling the truth as she knew it. She sited a family tradition to that effect and then the DNA text performed by an expert in Native American ancestry confirmed that. In adding to what Nancy Drawn wrote 37% of women in the US put off medical treatment because of cost while 22% of men do so. This is one reason why 58% of women support “Obamacare” compared to only 47% of men. The current administration wants to end “Obamacare” while the Democrats want to keep it and Elizabeth Warren wants to expand upon it. Elizabeth Warren also wants to reduce the Maternal Morality Rate which has been increasing in the US since at least 2000. Women are more in line with Democrats in regard to gun control with 70% of women supporting stricter gun control compared to 51% of men; 77% of women support a bill which would allow undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children to remain in the US legally, compared to only 67% of men who support that and 17% of women who oppose that and 52% of women oppose the border wall compared to 45% of men who oppose that and 35% of women who support that. Also 61% of women support new LGBT protections compared to only 40% of men.

Tom,

DreadPirateLuna · 15/01/2020 16:27

As to stop putting trans women in male prisons that does not mean that they would be placed among women prisoners. There are close to 500 trans prisoners in Federal prisons and they could be put in their own faculty, which is a good compromise.

I agree that is a good compromise. If that's what she meant she should be clear about it.

BovaryX · 15/01/2020 16:38

while Republicans predominately vote for white males

Five years and you still can't grasp that this dreary obsession with identity isn't working. If the Democrats can't come up with a viable candidate? They will lose. Again.

GrinitchSpinach · 15/01/2020 16:51

She is not proposing separate facilities. She is proposing putting male prisoners in female prisons on their say-so (and taxpayers footing the bill for their facial feminization, breast implant and Neo-vagina surgeries, too):

I will direct the Bureau of Prisons to end the Trump Administration’s dangerous policy of imprisoning transgender people in facilities based on their sex assigned at birth and ensure that all facilities meet the needs of transgender people, including by providing medically necessary care, like transition-related surgeries, while incarcerated.
elizabethwarren.com/plans/lgbtq-equality

This fits in perfectly with her proposal to levy civil penalties on homeless/dv shelters that do not "provide transgender women with an appropriate placement" by which she means according to self-identified gender rather than sex.

allmywhat · 15/01/2020 17:01

Trans murder victims are likely to be victims of hate crimes

This isn't true. They are murdered less than other demographics, and when it does happen they are usually killed in the course of criminal activity.

Sometimes the murder of a transwoman is a domestic violence situation, but if domestic violence against a transwoman is a hate crime, then why isn't domestic violence against actual women counted as a hate crime? Almost all murders of actual women count as hate crimes if those criteria are applied.

allmywhat · 15/01/2020 17:04

ensure that all facilities meet the needs of transgender people, including by providing medically necessary care, like transition-related surgeries, while incarcerated.

Well, thank God she won't get the nomination. All the Republicans will have to do is publicise a few of the cases of pedophiles, rapists and mass murderers who are currently demanding that the government spend six figure sums on their genital rearrangements and she's toast.

Endymion1 · 15/01/2020 17:51

Dread Pirate Luna, yes that would be good if she was clear about it.

Boyary X, I’m not sure what you mean by “obsession with identity” it is the Republicans who are obsessed with identity since they are the ones who predominantly nominate and vote for one group – white males, while the Democrats vote for the person no matter what group that person is part of. Now if you mean by a viable candidate only a candidate that is a white male then eventually this is a winner strategy for the Democrats as most Americans and in particular women and young people don’t want just white men leading the nation.

Grinitch Spinaach, nothing in what you quoted says that Elizabeth Warren wants to put trans women in women’s prisons nor that the quote “provide transgender women with an appropriate placement” mean she want to mix trans women with women.

All my what, it may be the case that Trans murder victims are not likely to be victims of hate crimes, but reading the names of those victims is not a much of a negative for her and the cost of the medical treatment is also low considering all the positives for women and minorities by electing Democrats. I do not believe that white men have the answered for everyone. Retaining the gains that came about due to Democrats is much the bigger issue.

Tom

Nancydrawn · 15/01/2020 17:51

Ineedacupofteadesperately, I take your point. But electability arguments are different than what I was reacting to--I was reacting to the idea that Trump was actually a better choice than Warren, which several early posters made.

However, in terms of electability, all the Democratic candidates support trans rights/aren't gender critical (again, whatever term you think is most apt). It's not a reason not to support Warren specifically amongst the Dems.

So, for example, Bernie, a candidate several people have suggested as preferable to Warren, was one of the earliest public supporters of the trans community. Biden, probably the most moderate of the main candidates, has expressed open support for the trans community.

Thus, the electability argument is pointless. It's going to be a trans-supporting Democrat if any of the top five primary candidates gets elected. You can think this is a good thing or a bad thing--and I know most of the people in this forum think it's a bad thing. But it has nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren particularly.

So, the question is, would you vote for a trans-rights-supporting Democrat or for Donald Trump? One of the two is going to get elected, full stop. Earlier posters seem to suggest that Trump would be a better choice on a feminist basis. I think that's astounding and unacceptable, hence my earlier post.

TheTigersBride · 15/01/2020 17:56

I seeElizabeth Warren’splan to read trans murder victims in the rose garden each week to be a positive. Trans murder victims are likely to be victims of hate crimes and calling attention to hate crimes of any form I feel is a positive

One might wonder why, given how important her Native American culture and heritage is that she didn't do this years ago for Native American women who are as a class far more vulnerable and at risk.

nauticant · 15/01/2020 17:56

Earlier posters seem to suggest that Trump would be a better choice on a feminist basis.

vs

When it comes to people like Warren, I'm not sure that Trump is the worst option.

I'm not that impressed with misrepresentation like this. You see, unlike you, I don't actually know what would end up being worse for the US in the long term.

Goosefoot · 15/01/2020 18:01

I don't think generalised "support of trans people" is a problem. That could mean a lot of things, many of them positive.

It's specific policies that are going to cause problems, and the identity politics lens itself.

BovaryX · 15/01/2020 18:13

One might wonder why, given how important her Native American culture and heritage is that she didn't do this years ago for Native American women who are as a class far more vulnerable and at risk

Excellent post

GrinitchSpinach · 15/01/2020 18:15

I see you haven't engaged my point about Warren's proposed fines on women-only shelters, Endymion.

As for prisons, I think she made it clear in December when she said:
I will change the rules now that put people in prison based on their birth sex identification rather than their current identification.
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/20/transcript-december-democratic-debate/
If she has a plan to build new separate facilities rather than put people in facilities "based on their current identification," she sure is keeping it awfully quiet...

Nancy, you write that "it has nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren particularly." It does, though. Out of all the candidates she has been the most vocal in her support for policies that would put the priorities of male people first, at the expense of female people. If you read what I wrote before I acknowledged that these policies have become the recent party orthodoxy and that all the candidates toe the line---but that these issues have not been tested in the wider electorate. It takes a special kind of candidate to seize the banner of eliminating women's and girls' rights and waving it harder than anyone else.

So, the question is, would you vote for a trans-rights-supporting Democrat or for Donald Trump? One of the two is going to get elected, full stop. Earlier posters seem to suggest that Trump would be a better choice on a feminist basis.

I think I am the only self-identified Wink American voter on the thread so far, and I outlined my reasoning above, which was not to vote for Trump. I mean, I guess you can spend time arguing with non-American posters about the right thing to do in the hypothetical situation that they had a vote in this election, but...

Nancydrawn · 15/01/2020 18:17

I suppose there's where we disagree. I think that cutting off women's healthcare (both through ACA and Planned Parenthood), imprisoning them for seeking an abortion, forcibly separating them from their children, weakening Title IX provisions (and withdrawing sexual assault guidance from campuses), appointing federal judges who support limiting women's rights, threatening to veto UN resolutions on rape if they mention women's healthcare, and ending the Equal Pay Rule are worse.

Not to mention the elevation of a man who objectifies and trivializes women at every turn (putting aside the allegations of sexual assault and the message it sends when you valorize him with an election). Who said, on record, “I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else. And you know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore, I’m inspecting it. You know they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that" and "I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything… grab them by the pussy.”

I understand that you disagree. You think that gender identity and the larger issues it provokes is more important than the list above, and while I disagree, I understand your position. I am not being disingenuous when I say this (I know I sound it, but I'm really not). Genuinely, if you think the trans question is more important what I wrote above, then you should probably vote for Trump--he's a better candidate fit for you.

GrinitchSpinach · 15/01/2020 18:22

Genuinely, if you think the trans question is more important what I wrote above, then you should probably vote for Trump--he's a better candidate fit for you.

Are you replying to me? If so it's a non-sequitur as I just repeated my original assertion that I would never vote for Trump.

Confused
nauticant · 15/01/2020 18:27

It was probably directed to me GrinitchSpinach.

I think what's happening is there's a cultural backlash, partly to do with identity politics, and it could be that having the backlash now with Trump might be milder than with someone worse than Trump once we've had years of more extreme identity politics.

The point is, Trump is a symptom. He's not a cause.

Nancydrawn · 15/01/2020 18:27

GrinitchSpinach, as another American voter, I'm just not sure she waves that flag harder than any other Democrat.

Bernie Sanders has said that one of the reasons he wants to expand healthcare is to "cover gender affirming surgeries" and that he wants to pass the Equality Act, which "prohibit[s] discrimination on the basis of the sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes." Moderate Joe Biden said that prison assignment should be based on gender identity, not sex at birth; wants to pass the Equality Act; and called transgender discrimination "the civil rights issue of our time." I don't think she's particularly far across a line that others are toeing--I think that misconstrues her position.

This is a useful compendium of Democratic candidates' positions: www.insider.com/presidential-nominees-on-lgbt-rights-2019-3

Agree or disagree with their positionsand again, I know that most people on this thread probably disagreeI just don't think it's fair to paint her as fundamentally different from the other candidates on this issue. Perhaps that leaves some people without a political home, but most Democratic candidates are pretty much in line with her.

GrinitchSpinach · 15/01/2020 18:34

I don’t disagree at all that most candidates are supporting similar positions. I just think she’s injecting this issue into places where it hasn’t even come up (like her closing statement last night) and generally making it a more central issue in her campaign than the others are. To be clear, I don’t trust any of them.

BickerinBrattle · 15/01/2020 18:34

Well, the question is one of priorities too, though, isn’t it?

I don’t think Bernie Sanders has prioritized genderism in the way Warren has: he hasn’t made a show of his pronouns, and when he was specifically asked about what he’d do for transgender identified people, he said he’d do what he’d do for everyone and referenced health care, jobs, and wages.

I don’t accept that Trump is a better choice on a feminist basis.

But on the level of material need, I don’t accept that Elizabeth Warren is good enough. She’s quite good at identifying problems. But her proposed solutions are paltry, reinforce the rent-seeking economy, and operate on very very long time frames. She is after all, the one who said she’d consider Deval Patrick, of Bain Capital, notorious pillager of many companies and destroyer of hundreds of thousands of jobs on behalf of private equity investors.

She is the candidate of the professional-managerial class. She’s running the same-old, same-old Democratic playbook: hoping to win crossover suburban Republican voters. Maybe she will, after all, she was a Republican herself for most of her adult life.

My fear, though, is that more of the same incrementalism, market-based (ie rent-seeking) solutions that aren’t universal and thereby allow for differing benefits to people based on arbitrary factors (like geography, in the case of Obamacare) will only breed further disillusion and resentment and create an even bigger vacuum than the one Trump rode into, a vacuum into which someone much more competent and much more ideologically determined than Trump may ride.

FDR’s New Deal policies not only staved off a socialist revolt in the US; they also staved off a surge of the populace toward fascism.

Good policy makes good politics. If Obama had come up with a better policy response to the financial crisis, one that didn’t allow for 14 million illegal foreclosures, one that bailed out small business as much as it bailed out investment banks and AIG, one that didn’t end up slashing auto factory worker pay by 2/3 — I don’t think we’d have Trump. If he’d been more concerned with people actually getting health care than with creating a plan that bailed out the financial woes of the insurance companies (check what their stock valuations did immediately after Obamacare was passed) — we wouldn’t have Trump.

Warren’s policies aren’t good enough for the place a great swath of the US populace is now in — it’s that simple.

As for the Democrats supporting abortion rights — they do by word only, not by deed. During the Clinton administration, they decided they were a “Big Tent” party and that supporting abortion rights was not a prerequisite for receiving funds from the party to run as a candidate. It was Democratic Party controlled Justice committees that approved the Roberts Supreme Court nomination. It was Obama who codified the Hyde Amendment into the ACA, so that it cannot be overturned now except by an act of Congress (where before a president had only to refuse to sign it into effect each year.) It was Obama who spent years refusing the approval of Plan B for minors without parental approval because, he said, “as a father,” he couldn’t imagine wanting his daughters to take such a course — until finally he changed his mind. Hillary Clinton’s own VP running mate, Tim Kaine, is pro-life. The Democratic Party has stood idly by while abortion rights have dwindled such that abortion is available in only a third of American counties.

Finally, regarding the identities of the various party leaderships, I defer to Adolph Reed’s question (paraphrasing): is it the change we seek, if 50% of fossil-fuel CEOs are female; is it the progress we want, if Goldman Sachs is headed by a black man, does that change the vampire-squid effect firms like Goldman Sachs has had on the American economy; are the people who are oppressed by the great inequality of wealth in America less oppressed if a percentage of those wealthy or their political representatives are gay, Latino, trans, female, etc?

Obama oversaw the greatest rollback in African-American wealth ever, as a result of his handling of the financial crisis. Obama deported more immigrants than any of his predecessors combined. Obama expanded
American military adventurism into seven countries, all of which are populated by black and brown people.

Race was not at play in his choices: class was.

If the Democrats cannot talk about class, cannot campaign for the bottom 80%, the right will — as Trump explicitly did.

Look out for dominionist Congressman Josh Hawley, look out for Fox commentator Tucker Carlson. They’re angling to move into that space that speaks about class politics from a conservative, patriarchal, industrialist, Burkeian standpoint as opposed to a neoconservative, unfettered financial capital, imperialist standpoint — aimed at the precarity faced by the bottom 80%. And Tucker Carlson has ALREADY started taking on the trans issue.

GrinitchSpinach · 15/01/2020 19:01

I’m so glad you posted, Bicker. You always have a terrifying bracing big-picture view to contribute. I want to be like you when I grow up, sincerely!

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread