Joe Biden issues new statement on the transgender debate

[ripx4nutmeg]

In a Q&A he said he'll reverse all 'anti trans' executive orders if he becomes president. He revealed again that he doesn't really know anything about the trans debate but implied he will still give campaigners everything they want twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1316913590620852224?s=20

@Floisme

Well how do you fight for women's rights if you can't define what a woman is? Can you answer the question?

Also, that poster seems to think we are worried about the rights of trans people - I am only worried about the rights of women, who last time I looked were 49% of the population, not 1%. (according to google). And as we keep showing on here, when women are being told to shut up - women's rights are being abused.

@Floisme

Well how do you fight for women's rights if you can't define what a woman is? Can you answer the question?

Of course!

Is there a disadvantage in front of me because I'm not male?

Is the language being used to describe this event exclusionary to not-males?

Is the language being used to describe this person derogatory to not-males, whether that person is male or female?

Am I being expected to police the behaviour of males in order to keep myself safe?

In the States, do I have to drive more than 100 miles to access female-oriented healthcare, because Planned Parenthood has been driven out?

Do I have to declare heavy periods as a pre-existing condition which could affect my ability to get treatment for endemetriosis?

Does my employer have the right to refuse me birth control pills on my company-paid "healthcare' plan while signing off on Cialis with no problems?

Just a few examples which have nothing to do with trans or inter-sex, and which also don't involve 'butch' looking women being driven out of the loos in M&S.

What on earth is a not-male?

Is the language being used to describe this person derogatory to not-males, whether that person is male or female?

What does this mean?

Calling women ‘not-males’ is derogatory.

@Floisme

What on earth is a not-male?

It is a crystal clear example of a total contempt for women as a linguistic description of an exclusive sex category. It epitomises a belief that natal women need to sit down, shut up and listen to natal males even on issues of our existence as a group. It is another example of the ongoing attack on language and the determination to permanently sever words from their meanings and the external reality they describe. It is both laughable. And frightening. It is frightening because of the craven propensity of craven politicos to capitulate to the Robespierre faction and the existential threat they pose to freedom of speech, diversity of opinion and rational debate.

It was a dumb, low ball question with an obvious and meaningless answer. “Do you hate my trans daughter like Mr Trump?”

“No! Mr Trumps is bad and I am not so I will undo whatever he did!”

Would have liked to see what he said if women’s sport was brought up. But of course it never is.

Or ... Congress could actually legislate a federal law (like they should have in the first place) instead of having relied on unelected judges to make and hold this decision for all these years.

Kitty I've never really understood why this hasn't happened but then I'm not in the US. What's your take on it?

Using not-male as a way to focus on the source of the discrimination as being the patriarchy, but you continue with your obsession with ensuring femaleness is pure and unsullied by association with other expressions of gender

And completely fail to engage with any of my examples of women-hurting discrimination currently going on

Well bloody done

And I'm just one woman here - I'll put up a picture of my c section scar if you want to be sure - not telling women to shut up, but asking women to have more than one stupid thought in their head that plays straight into the hands of the kinder kirche küche patriarchy currently taking over the States

The "not-males" thing was a gotcha. Either no one would pick up on it and you could feel smug at having got one over on the women of FWR or someone would pick it up and you could spring your "bigot trap".

women to shut up, but asking women to have more than one stupid thought in their head

Your abject contempt for women is on explicit display. Do you hear yourself? By the way? It is attitudes such as yours and your woeful inability to comprehend that people have different political views which guarantees increasing polarisation. If you really want to see a patriarchy in action? I suggest you get on a plane and get off further East than Euro Disney.

In the States, do I have to drive more than 100 miles to access female-oriented healthcare, because Planned Parenthood has been driven out?

What is female-orientated healthcare? Do you mean healthcare where people wear dresses and high heels and have long hair? Because it would be exclusionary to not include prostrate screening and for it not to run programs for checking for testicular cancer - after all in your shiny world ‘females’ need this too. Any they definitely mustn’t focus on reproductive health of gestators as that would be transphobic.

I didn't ask why you were using it, I asked what it means.
What's a not-male?

Up to 50 a day @Gurufloof?! Wow. Did not know that. I understood their stats were of a similar proportion to ours - i.e about 8-10 per week. I wish i was more shocked.

@Aesopfable

In the States, do I have to drive more than 100 miles to access female-oriented healthcare, because Planned Parenthood has been driven out?

What is female-orientated healthcare? Do you mean healthcare where people wear dresses and high heels and have long hair? Because it would be exclusionary to not include prostrate screening and for it not to run programs for checking for testicular cancer - after all in your shiny world ‘females’ need this too. Any they definitely mustn’t focus on reproductive health of gestators as that would be transphobic.

Bollocks. I'm referring to cervical screens, mammograms, birth control and abortions - all female-centred healthcare that the Trump adminstration has been taking away from people not just in the States but abroad - because centres that offer abortion AS WELL AS other female health services are being defunded

What's your opinion on that?

now.org/resource/violence-against-women-in-the-united-states-statistic/

On average it's about 10 per day RuffleCrow. Thousands a year which is shocking but much lower than the 50 figure.

@Floisme

I didn't ask why you were using it, I asked what it means. What's a not-male?

Anyone who isn't a natal male and is thus at a disadvantage in a patriarchy. The main, vastly main element of this grouping is natal women. And the main element of those women on this thread seen more concerned with denying rights to a tiny proportion than fighting for rights against that powerful patriarchy.

I presumed @Aesopfable was being sarcastic.

@BovaryX

women to shut up, but asking women to have more than one stupid thought in their head

Your abject contempt for women is on explicit display. Do you hear yourself? By the way? It is attitudes such as yours and your woeful inability to comprehend that people have different political views which guarantees increasing polarisation. If you really want to see a patriarchy in action? I suggest you get on a plane and get off further East than Euro Disney.

So what are you doing for women's rights right now, other than trying to ensure only natal women can be called women?

Kitty I've never really understood why this hasn't happened but then I'm not in the US. What's your take on it?

The federal government is relatively weak in the US. Essentially congress can spend money to do things (that’s why the things it passes are called bills, not laws), but it’s harder for it to say “you can’t do something”. Whatever isn’t done by Congress is left to the states. Specifically the feds can spend money on things but it’s probably unconstitutional for the federal govt to Try to pass a law stating “no state may outlaw abortion”.

Essentially what the federal govt could do is to withhold funding from states which don’t comply. This could be done via executive order. That’s what title 9 does for women’s sports for example. Either congress can do this (pass a bill which eliminates funding based on lack of abortion rights) or the president could do so.

I think even if this were done there would be some very deeply red states that would ban abortion anyway.

And yes, people can have differing political views, but when those views include seeing certain people born a certain way as less than, there's a name for those views and damn right we should be polarised against them

The not male was not a gotcha, it was a short hand. Or was forcing the gaze onto the bloody males that are the main problem.

Reducing women to "not males."

Defining an oppressed group by drawing attention to their non-membership of the dominant group.

Reinforcing man as "default human", woman as "other" yet again.

So much progress, so much inclusion. I feel a positively warm glow at the thought of my new status as "non male".

Oh no, hang on a mo - I don't. Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

Not to worry, he won’t win.