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

Anyone who isn't a natal male
So natal male is the default? Is that what you mean?

Not reducing women to not makes no

@Floisme

Anyone who isn't a natal male So natal male is the default? Is that what you mean?

In the patriarchy? Yes, of course it is, that's the point!

That's what we need to overturn

Yes but some men need mammograms and cervical smear tests too. Some men have vaginas. Not all women have vaginas. This has nothing to do with women's healthcare as it affects both men and women. This isn't a feminist issue.

If a woman is fired from her job because she is pregnant, that's not sex discrimination because men get pregnant and can be birthing parents too. She can't sue her employer because the law applies equally to men and women. The employer fires men and women equally for getting pregnant.

It's offensive to assume that heavy periods is a women's issue. If a state refuses to provide medical care for people with heavy periods, that's unfortunate but it hardly discriminates against women.

@EdgeOfACoin

Yes but some men need mammograms and cervical smear tests too. Some men have vaginas. Not all women have vaginas. This has nothing to do with women's healthcare as it affects both men and women. This isn't a feminist issue.

If a woman is fired from her job because she is pregnant, that's not sex discrimination because men get pregnant and can be birthing parents too. She can't sue her employer because the law applies equally to men and women. The employer fires men and women equally for getting pregnant.

It's offensive to assume that heavy periods is a women's issue. If a state refuses to provide medical care for people with heavy periods, that's unfortunate but it hardly discriminates against women.

So what are you doing to ensure that natal women can access reproductive healthcare then? Because if it's voting for Trump I think perhaps you haven't understood the last 4 years.

How are you defining "man" and "woman" there @edgeofacoin?

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

That would because only those born women are in fact women.

Bored with this continual promo word salad now.

Women's rights, as opposed to more general human rights, typically come down to two things:

Rights we need in virtue of our reproductive capacity (abortion, contraception, not being sacked when we get pregnant)

Or a reminder of those rights we ought to have had all along - human rights - but which we have historically been denied because we were seen as less than human, like the vote, forms of property ownership and inheritance.

Male humans who identify as trans don't need the former and always had the latter (see, for eg. the weasely get out clauses round male primogeniture in the GRA).

So fuck off with this "excluding trans people from human rights" nonsense unless you can come up with concrete specific examples of human rights they ought to have that they don't have.

Are you saying there's a difference between natal women and transwomen and they have different needs?

How very transphobic of you.

@RuffleCrow

How are you defining "man" and "woman" there *@edgeofacoin*?

Well, Ruffle, I'm not entirely sure.

I keep asking that question myself and never getting a response. I know it's something to do with gender essence but is nothing to do with stereotyping.

I'll ask you again because I'd like this to be absolutely clear - Are you saying that you believe 'not male' is an acceptable alternative to 'woman'?

So what are you actively doing for women's rights? That doesn't focus on defining what a woman is? Do you agree that there's no point in women's rights if you can't define 'woman'? Do you not get huge incredibly short sighted and dangerous that is?

So what are you doing for women's rights right now

For a kick off, not referring to women as 'not males' and not calling women 'stupid' because they don't obediently chant the slogans of the new religion.

Are you going to answer the question? Here it is again: Are you saying that you believe 'not male' is an acceptable alternative to 'woman'?

Since you ask, trade union activism. Low level bread and butter stuff like getting my employer to introduce childcare vouchers, or fighting equal pay claims (which were indirectly the result of maternity leave - pay discrepancies due to performance pay and missing out on increments).

So all rooted in your basic, boring old female reproductive capacity, and the way the patriarchy at worst weaponised it (my mum's experience back in the day when you could be legally sacked for getting pregnant) or now when the patriarchy pretends not to see it and therefore constructs its social institutions round male experience as default.

None of it to do with gender feels.

FWRLurker thanks for the explanation. I can see that must make it difficult and yet both Clinton and Obama had two terms in office. Was there really no opportunity in those 16 years do you think? Or was it more down to a lack of will?

I was using not male in a very specific context there, I was not calling women, transwomen, transmen, binary people or intersex people 'not male' as a label, I was seeking to simply put the focus on males as being the patriarchy. As I've said. I don't know how many more ways I can say that, but perhaps if you took it in good faith we could actually talk about the consequences?

You still haven't answered the question.

No I wouldn't refer to women as not-male, but I will refer to you as monomaniac

So what do you call them? And how do you define them?

Okay, your starter for 10, Fanny.

You say women's rights are very important to you.

What do you see those rights as involving?

What unified the group of people you see as needing such rights?

Do yòu think think doing away with perfectly adequate words for things will continue as a trend more generally?!

So tree becomes "Arborial-identifying-life-form" (Ailf)

Cat becomes "Self-Identified-Deity" (Sid).

Or we could just go back to grunting at each other before being hit over the head with a club and getting dragged to some guy's cave.

And this is why the feminism board is dead.

It's acceptable to say that voting Trump is feminist because he hasn't said transwomen are women, even though he's a predatory rapist (per Ivana Trump) a serial sexual-assaulter (per his own words) and a forced-birther (in office if not in his own private life)

It's acceptable to completely ignore issues facing women because it doesn't matter unless you define exactly what a woman is

And you can't discuss any discrimination against women on almost any board without one of you popping up to say something stupid about transwomen.

You make me utterly sick, and utterly despairing. You're working towards Gilead and you don't even recognise it.

I understand your frustation. I sometimes get flustered and annoyed too when someone asks me a straightforward question and I can't answer it.

But DameFanny, how can you talk about issues facing women when you can identify who falls under the term woman? Is not being able to access gender affirming surgery an issue women face? Is not receiving invites for prostate checks something women face? Will not having access to maternity leave still be important to women when a very vocal part of women will never need it?