Biden has completely obliterated woman’s sex based protections as he said he would do.

[yourfaceisaforeignfood]

www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/

“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports."

Biden just passed all the worst parts of the Equality Act by executive order (so without going through any legislation at all). It is limited in effect to agencies (I think) but those agencies include the Bureau of Prisons, Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Dept of Education, Dept of Labor etc

This will of course be unchallenged, even welcomed by the media. It will likely have a knock on effect around the world.

And I am so angry. So so angry. He was never the ‘least worst option’ he is the absolute worst option.

As Abigail Shriner says
twitter.com/abigailshrier/status/1352121732723666946?s=21

It shouldn’t be disappointing, it should be obvious.

There are plenty of men at stonewall. Men are no less misogynistic just because they belong to or identify as another marginalised group.

Have you ever seen the non violent communication cartoon where the husband goes home and belittles the wife and the wife shouts and the kid and the kid kicks the dog? Well in the hirachy of power dynamics us women are the flea the mouse would eat after the cat bites off the mouses tail to take back power from the dog who bites the cat after the kid kicks the dog. We are the bottom of the pile so any men see attacking and betraying us as fair game. Just because we’ve been allies to them means nothing. And the lesbians at stonewall are forced to jump ship if they speak truth, otherwise they are handmaidens to men the same way straight women are, throw the rest of us under the bus to prove they are a better class of women so men won’t target them.

When they realise that doesn’t protect them from biological reality them will realise, but sadly not before.

And the lesbians at stonewall are forced to jump ship if they speak truth, otherwise they are handmaidens to men the same way straight women are, throw the rest of us under the bus to prove they are a better class of women so men won’t target them.

And that's why you shouldn't blame the individuals in that position too much. Sure, they're responsible for their actions, they made a choice to toe the line. But some people always will - if they hadn't someone else would be in their place. Target the system.

I'm reminded of this :

Andrew Marr: "How can you know that I'm self-censoring?"

Noam Chomsky: "I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."

The system is made up of individuals.

Some of those individuals have much greater power than others- men. I’d hold them accountable first. But any adult woman will hold greater power over my highly vulnerable disabled girls, so they have some accountability also.

There are systems where some adults are entirely powerless, systems where they are literal slaves and have no power to ever change that, no legal rights, no right to vote, no right to education or access to any form of healthcare or police or laws or don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions they can be accountable for. Then we can say it’s the system. We can’t act like adults in developed countries are as powerless as those adults. Being pedantic over philosophy is a luxury we don’t have when our rights are being erased, because once they are women will be that powerless.

*It shouldn’t be disappointing, it should be obvious.
*
It's both. I suppose I saw the LGB movement as feminist allies in my youth. But of course there are hierarchies within the movement that echo wider society and when the T was added the straight white male of course became the most important constituency.

I guess I never had enough hope to be disappointed.

The idea that gay men are some kind of friend of women and a better, gentler, kinder type of men to us is a very harmful trope imho. Gay men are every bit the misogynists straight men are. I know plenty of each who aren’t of course, but I feel like the namalt becomes one of those fucked up socialised rhetorics I can step away with easily when it comes to straight white males, but do so when it’s about gay men or bame men or so on and the shouts of bigotry come out all the more quickly. When the reality is the only factor is men being misogynists is the male part. Straight white males may hold power over everyone but all men hold power over us. Anywhere they are it’s obvious we’ll be the ones paying for it.

I actually can’t believe anything sinister of him and my first reaction is that it’s a stitch-up but something is not letting me be convinced.

I understand. The full television footage of Biden and the senators' families is here - . There are more incidents than shown in the previous short clip. It is even more awful as it shows the full length of time he touches the girls inappropriately and how purposeful he is when arranging who stands in front of him.

Former staffer Tara Reade says Biden seriously sexually assaulted her when she worked with him www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52462113. Multiple women have described him sexually harassing them. I don't know why the UK media isn't being at all critical of him now he is in power, he would be an anti-NHS conservative politician here.

So I guess we will now see what happens in a libertarian society with the brakes off.

Scary.

Excellent posts SqueakyCarrots

Thanks squeaky carrots.

Really enjoying your posts

video.foxnews.com/v/6225490156001#sp=show-clips
Cara Dansky on Fox News

I wish she had properly explained the implications, whereas given the full opportunity to do so, really frustrating

Trump is revolting, but we can see what he is. Biden is a whole other danger. Between the two I would have still voted for Trump to stop Biden getting in. Despite the warnings people just didn't want to hear it. We need to be honest and speak out, ignore the abuse for not falling in with the crowd, and keep talking.
The same in the UK. People don't dare say they voted for the Tory party. But if it kept labour out, who undoubtedly would try to impose something similar to Bidens principles, then I would do so in a heartbeat. Not spoil my ballot, not vote for a party that doesn't stand a chance, I would vote Tory. Because, although they're not ideal, we have more chance of protecting women and children's rights with them

I agree. But you can't say anything without being labelled transphobic. And to support another party (other than the left), is abhorrent. You must be devoid of all humanity to do such a thing.

Ah, the tolerant left. They love free speech don't they? Democracy too.

@gluteustothemaximus

So I guess we will now see what happens in a libertarian society with the brakes off.

Scary.

On another thread related to Biden, they have passed it off as him just excusing it away as being touchy feely guy oh and that some of the pictures are faked or don't show the whole context.

Sorry but I a gree with you on this, weren't some well know celebrities was it Saville? who was touching girls inappropraitely on TV and there was a big thing about it

You won't hear about it in MSM anymore, Biden has been replacing media with left wing supporting people.

You will very soon not be able to speak out against the left because to do so will label you as either mentally ill; white supremicist or a domestic terrorist. Sounds like communist china is coming to America very quickly.

Tucker Carlson on this...

www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-biden-equality-girls-sports

"You may have missed it, but Joe Biden devoted part of his very first day in office to addressing one of this nation's most pressing problems: Girls' sports.

The main problem with girls' sports, obviously, is that they lack diversity: Only girls get to play. That's wrong, and Joe Biden plans to fix it; to break the turf ceiling, if you will.

Now, for the first time in history, men will be allowed to compete in, for example, girls' field hockey, and then change in the girls' locker room afterward. Joe Biden has signed an executive order requiring it. Even Barack Obama didn't do that.

This makes Joe Biden a #civilrightshero. There's been a lot of talk recently about women's empowerment, but it takes a real leader, a once-in-a-generation moral visionary, to go further than that and use federal power to humiliate and endanger women on behalf of biological men. That is next-level feminism. That is real empowerment...."

Joe Biden C'mon Man Remix

That article is amazing. The one relief in my very tear filled day. Thank you zinco.

As terrible as this is for American girls, it has thrown open the overton window in the US.

NY post article "Biden’s trans order undoes decades of feminist progress" nypost.com/2021/01/22/bidens-trans-order-undoes-decades-of-feminist-progress/

I'll try to explain why it's really important that women are defined in law as the set of people who share, or would share were it not for a disorder of sexual development (DSD), the reproductive biology needed for the release of ova. I've italicised that phrase because I intend to use it a lot. I know this is a thread about a recent american presidential executive order, but I'm british so I'm going to use british equality laws to illustrate my points. The points ought to apply to the american situation if ERA gets through.

At the moment, the legal basis for things as varied as:

• Workplace training on how managers should assist workers who are going through the menopause.
• Universities and schools offering free menstrual products to students.
• Councils placing special bins in toilets for menstrual products, or
• prescribed contraceptives being free-of-charge (with the exception of male condoms, contraceptives are all used only by women and all non-barrier contraceptives are prescription-only).
• An employer making sure that the procurement contract with the approved workwear vendor specifies that the vendor must supply safety boots and lab coats and overalls designed for women's bodies (the average shoe width for a woman is D or E, for a man it is around G) and in women's sizes. Allowing the set of people who share, or would share were it not for a disorder of sexual development (DSD), the reproductive biology needed for the release of ova to work/study/etc at all*.

is that:

1. With a few statutory exemptions listed in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) (e.g. men-only clubs, boys' schools, artistic groups that have a genuine need to be all-male like male voice choirs and The Lord Chamberlain's Men), women have a legal right to be included in workplaces and educational establishments and life in general.
2. This right to be included can require employers, service providers etc to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate women being there.
3. A women is "a female of any age" (see EqA S212(1)), so anything that could exclude "a female of any age" (notwithstanding lawful age restrictions applied to both sexes) that isn't one of the lawful exemptions listed in (1) would be illegal adverse discrimination against women. "Female" is a term used in biology to refer to the reproductive class in any sexual dimorphic species that, assuming no DSD, releases ova, in other words, the set of members of that species who share, or would share were it not for a DSD, the reproductive biology needed for the release of ova. Ova are the reproductive cells that don't move under their own propulsion, whereas sperm are motile. Humans are mammals, so human females release ova and also have other organs and bodily differences (known as "secondary sex characteristics") that enable gestation of said ova and nursing of the resultant young, should fertilisation take place. Women's whole bodies are different from men's because women (subject to DSDs), release ova; this whole-body difference is called "sexual dimorphism".
4. We can infer from (2) and (3) that a failure to make a reasonable adjustment to accommodate the set of people who share, or would share were it not for a disorder of sexual development (DSD), the reproductive biology needed for the release of ova, including any failure to accommodate sexual dimorphism and any failure to accommodate the biological processes associated with female biology (such as menarche, menstruation, and menopause), is discrimination against women (DAW) and a violation of the legal rights outlined in (1).

Imagine now that Stonewall get their way and "sex" is replaced with "gender identity" in EqA. All the legal underpinning for the reasonable adjustments I listed above would disappear because:

1. a failure to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the set of people who share, or would share were it not for a DSD, the reproductive biology needed for the release of ova would no longer be in law a failure to accommodate women, and
2. the set of people who share, or would share were it not for a DSD, the reproductive biology needed for the release of ova would no longer be defined in law as a class that need to be protected under the EqA.

Potential consequences:

• Your workplace could, say as a cost-saving measure, cancel all the training on how to manage menopausal colleagues, and when you complained that this is DAW because managers now don't know how to accommodate older women staff members, they could say that it isn't because your colleague Jane Doe, born John, is a woman and doesn't need special menopause accommodations. And when you said, OK then, it's discrimination based on female biology, they'd say that they are not obliged to make reasonable adjustments for that.
• Your university or school could decide to stop providing free sanpro. When you complained that this is DAW, they'd say it isn't because Jane Doe, born John, doesn't ever need sanpro. When you said that it was discrimination based on female biology, they'd say that they don't legally have to make accommodations for the set of people who share, or would share were it not for a disorder of sexual development (DSD), the reproductive biology needed for the release of ova.
• Your council could remove the sanbins from the public loos. When you complained that this is DAW, they'd say it wasn't, and that they do not have to accommodate female biology.
• The NHS (or Dept for Health, or Public Health England, or whoever decides prescription charges) could decide to start charging for non-barrier contraceptives. When we complained that this is DAW because it's putting the financial burden of having heterosex almost entirely on us, they could say that it isn't because TW don't need non-barrier contraceptives and TWAW, and they have no legal obligation not to discriminate on the basis of reproductive biology.
• Your employer could stop mandating that the approved workwear supplier stocks women's sizes. The set of people who share, or would share were it not for a DSD, the reproductive biology needed for the release of ova would no longer get safety boots that fit properly, even though smaller narrower feet is a consequence of that reproductive biology. And when you complained that this is discrimination against women, they'd say it isn't because your colleague Jane Doe, born John and with a foot size typical of those born male, is a woman and she has no problems getting safety boots that fit.
• An employer delivering outdoor services (e.g. forestry management) stops hiring female field staff, who need to use a work van or car to drive to the nearest public loo if there is no portaloo at the work site, and places job ads that say "applicants must have a penis and be willing to urinate in the open air". (Public urination isn't illegal unless a local byelaw prohibits it.) When a be-vulvaed applicant is rejected and goes to tribunal to claim for DAW, she loses because Jane Doe, who has a penis and hence has no problem peeing against a tree, is legally a woman, and the law does not require the employer to accommodate the urination needs of people with vulvas because the set of people who share, or would share were it not for a DSD, the reproductive biology needed for the release of ova are no longer a class in law that need to accommodated.

And this is why Stonewall are misogynists who must be stopped.

The points ought to apply to the american situation if ERA gets through.

What I mean is, the consequences laid out at the bottom can't apply if ERA gets through. They can if it doesn't.

For anyone thinking that US law using gender identity as a basis for treating people isn't hurting members of the set of people who share, or would share were it not for a disorder of sexual development (DSD), the reproductive biology needed for the release of ova already, it is.

"Normal Life" by Dean Spade, in its introduction, details the case of Jim, a transman with a DSD in jail for parole violation:
I met Jim after he had turned himself in, wanting to deal with his outstanding criminal charges so that he could safely apply to college and get on with his life. Jim was now in a Brooklyn men's jail, again facing harassment and rape threats. The jail administration's refusal to continue Jim's testosterone treatments had caused him to menstruate; when Jim was strip searched while menstruating, other inmates and staff learned of his status [as a biological female].
[...]
When I went before the judge to request that Jim be placed in a women's prison because Jim believed it might be safer for him based on his experiences in men's facilities, the judge's response was, "He can't have it both ways." [...] The judge "threw the book" at Jim, sentencing him to the maximum number of years possible for violating parole and requiring him [a biological female, lest we forget] to serve the time in a men's prison.

Had Jim been legally recognised from the outset as one of the set of people who share, or would share were it not for a disorder of sexual development (DSD), the reproductive biology needed for the release of ova, he would never have been put in a men's jail in the first place.

@bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg

> The points ought to apply to the american situation if ERA gets through.

What I mean is, the consequences laid out at the bottom can't apply if ERA gets through. They can if it doesn't.

I really, really appreciate the effort, but...sorry, as much as I'm appalled by the erasure of women in our legal standing in the U.S. only one of those situations could even apply in the U.S. because:

1. We all pay for contraceptives here - there's no free barrier anything
2. U.S. Universities don't provide free sanpro
3. U.S. workplaces don't do shit for menopause anything
4. U.S. Employers tell people to be in charge of their own uniforms and if they have a supplier, they aren't mandated to provide uniforms in any such size
5. Can't remember the last time I was in a public bathroom and there was a sanitary dispenser...they seem inconsistent at best. There's nothing that mandates that at all.

Frankly, reading those makes me want to live in the UK...sounds much better.

@bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg I think in the UK the "Jane, formerly John, doesn't need it" argument would not apply. As far as I understand the legislation (IANAL), an issue doesn't need to affect only women for a situation to count as sex discrimination, it only needs to affect women as a group disproportionately.

For instance, the equal pay claim I had to fight a few years back. It was a big firm I worked for (and a cock-up rather than conspiracy situation - average pay had drifted apart at each grade due to long pay scales and automatic "average" markings if you were on maternity leave, coupled with long pay scales). It was not that there was no man with my length of service at my pay grade paid less than me - there were. It was that there weree disproportionately more men with similar length of service at my pay grade paid more than I and a group of my female colleagues - because we had had maternity leave(s) and they had not.

Same would apply to Jane-formerly-John not needing size D work boots. So long as women on average needed them and men did not, equality provisions would apply.

Ditto free san pro, free prescribable contraception...

As I've said before, most of the time the legal fiction that transwomen are to be treated as women (in most, but not all circs) doesn't cause problem for women.

It very much does cause women problems in sport, women's prisons, women's single sex accommodation (shared dorms, refuges, two-woman hall of residence bedrooms), women's right to a HCP of the same sex for intimate exams.

Philosophically I am very much TWAM. However, pragmatically in terms of what we're likely to be successful campaigning for, I think the important issue is protecting (and strengthening) legislation to allow us to retain women's sport segregated by sex, women's prisons segregated by sex, women's single sex accommodation (shared dorms, refuges, two-woman hall of residence bedrooms), women's right to a HCP of the same sex for intimate exams.

We need to keep banging the drum for sex as a protected characteristic in its own right, distinct from gender. I look upon protecting "gender" as a bit like protecting "freedom of religious belief" - we should, as a civilised society, allow people to believe all sorts of batshit things without discriminating against them because they believe batshit things.

For instance, I've known several very good physical scientists who (because of their religious beliefs) were young-Earth creationists (). I'd hate to see them discriminated against in employment because of this so long as it wasn't actually preventing them doing their job properly (they were, as I say, physical scientists - I don't think it would be appropriate for a young Earth creationist to teach biology in school).

Thanks Zinco, this is fantastic! Nothing beats Satire.

Tucker Carlson on this...

www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-biden-equality-girls-sports

But if we’re not recognising sex, how are we recognising same sex relationships?

Say I ‘identify’ as a man and a gay man.
If my employer fires all the homosexual employees but keeps me, has my employer done anything wrong? If I’m to be treated as a man (even though I’m clearly not), then can stonewall claim discrimination?

Sunlight! I'm going to try to stay optimistic.

It helped us UK Terven.

Trump and Biden are both as bad as each other. There is no victory here for women.

It’s interesting it’s one of the first things he signed off on though..

How can you trust a person that denies biological fact? It terrifies me that all the hard work/cancelling/being sacked U.K. women have put in to try and put the breaks on this maybe completely obliterated by some old man that lives in another country.

Yeah I can see what the USA womens Olympic sports team is going to look like..