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's sad really. But not our problem.

I think jealousy plays a part too.

Best ignored, I think. I realise that's a council of perfection when dealing with someone whose whole MO is to deliberately needle and provoke everyone else, but try to imagine a virtual "hide poster" button and simply scroll past.

It really does make life much nicer.

I actually quite enjoy that jj pops along to tell us off and tell us how wrong and irrational we are.

Because it makes it so much easier to notice the threads that jj doesn't feel the need to post on.

Datun posted a handy summary of jjs attempts to provide 'balance' upthread. That cheered me up.

And that's why it's a ridiculous judgement. But it has nothing to do with trans women or trans inclusion.

Oh, you think it's ridiculous now jj?
Pretty sure I saw you on one of the La Leche League threads arguing that TWs can breastfeed just as well as women.

I like j j‘s posts because they provide a commentary for those reading the threads. Particularly if we ignore some of the accusations and they go on to show just how misogynistic they are. Every time.

And how their perception of what being a woman entails has significant differences to the reality of females. It shows reliably everytime.

One of the advantages of women hating posters is that in their determination to criticise women, they keep some informative threads bumped and inspire some passionate and powerful writing from women. This happens repeatedly.

Thank you to all those women who've posted such insightful writing showing the varied reality of what women think and believe.

And jj always brings up how rosy and great they think it is in countries like Ireland and Argentina. Countries with such great human rights records. And where Irish women have started discussing this en masse after such delights as violent males in women’s prison, Amnasty’s horrific tweets of late, and where women and children victims of shocking abuse are referred to with further dehumanizing terms. People with vaginas wasn’t it?? So, please. Do keep bringing up Ireland as an example jj, it shows your attitude towards women in very clear light.

Anyone interested in the broader issues would benefit from listening to this:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rs8w

Journalist Leah Sottile asks what’s next for America’s far right and anti-government movement now that the first President they’ve ever supported has been defeated.

The idea that in the current context the new administration is going to use up political capital on identity politics to placate the very narrow activist segment and in so doing alienate moderate conservatives is chilling.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

That case was badly argued. US law, as does UK and EU law protects people who are pregnant and who lactate.

There are elements of being a mother or having people perceive that you might be now or in future that are often problematic for women and that don't fall under the protected characteristic of Pregnancy and Maternity, which I believe is quite a short window covering pregnancy through to a few months after birth. Anything else comes under direct or indirect sex discrimination. So the sex element is important however much we pretend that "people" can give birth and lactate.

I'm not sure what point you are making. That case seems to be about someone who made a very bad call on what constituted constructive dismissal. It frequently gets referred to here without I think an understanding of what it was actually about.

Re sex discrimination in UK and EU law a discriminatory act does not have to apply to everyone in a group. The most obvious is a height restriction which serves no practical purpose- eg all job applicants must be 5'6 Most women aren't 5'6- some men are but most will meet the requirement. The requirement discriminated on basis of sex as it disproportionately applies to women.

@bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg

Let's put it another way, jj. How many female prisoners must be raped or sexually-assaulted by someone like Barbie Kardashian or Karen White before you'll decide that transwomen don't belong in women's prisons? How many women must be traumatised and possibly left injured, pregnant, or with an STI by a bepenised person they could not flee from before you will allow prisons to be single-sex? How many women do you consider to be acceptable collateral damage to spare bepenised people's feelings?

I want a number.

It is always n+1.

Tulsi Gabbard stepped down from her congressional seat while running for President, due to pressure from Hawaii's governor (he wanted to run a special election to fill the seat), so she is no longer in office.

Republicans both in the House and the Senate introduced a similar bill to hers this session a week before Biden signed this EO, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2020.

Perhaps with all of this backlash, Pelosi and Schumer will feel compelled to let these bills come to a vote, but I would not hold my breath.

@CaraDuneRedux

The only way to make it secure would be via constitutional amendment. Amendments are rare and overwhelming support is required if you look at the processes. It has never been a realistic option.

This!

An amendment to the constitution is the only way one could secure abortion rights, and that would require a 2/3 majority (in both houses, I think) which simply isn't going to happen (nor would the converse, an amendment to rule against abortion).

Far more than just 2/3 in each chamber. It first needs to be brought up at all and voted on to proceed, then it needs to pass the legislatures of 3/4 of all of the states, as well as pass with 2/3 in each the House and Senate.

Abortion rights are secure under Roe, as neither side really want to overturn precedent from 1973, what is debated and scare-mongered is the over 20 weeks part of Roe v Wade, which the states are allowed.

Liberal states pass new laws allowing up to the moment of birth abortions (as VA and NY did in recent year) and conservative states respond with up to the moment of heartbeat ones, neither of which would pass muster if they are ever challenged up to SCOTUS and they decide to rule on them.

Neither side wants to discuss limits, but only say "my way or none," and I think this is intentional, since those running for national offices can fund raise from it and scare people.

• The states are allowed to legislate over 20 weeks, according to Roe, I should say.

@SebastianTheCrab

And btw I doubt Republicans will fight this. They don't want this debate and most of them are sexists and homophobes anyway who'd rather trans their kids than deal with them having a same-sex partner.

Demonstrably untrue, as Republicans in the House and Senate already introduced the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act one week before Biden was sworn in and signed his pile of EOs. Basically, they reintroduced Tulsi's bill.

When Obama was making changes in the Department of Education that affected girls in locker rooms and bathrooms, under threat of loss of federal funds, it was Republicans that were up in arms and conservative state legislatures trying to stop such. Trump immediately made an EO reversing this when he got in.

As Pelosi and Schumer will never let the bill come to a vote, yet again the executive orders will be challenged in state courts, then federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court, who will have the final say on this extermination of Title IX rights for females.

It is a shame that Congress has abdicated responsibility more and more from Bush, to Obama to Trump and allowed EOs to turn the US into a see-sawing monarchy ruled by dogmatic decree.

They were elected to that role. Funny how people who support trans rights keep winning elections over there

Trans rights come under the same system of civil rights as any other citizen. What you seem to be calling for is trans privileges. For the privilege of being able to impose upon, and colonise, the spaces of another group - one that has had to fight long and hard for its gains.

Why don't you campaign for a separate category? That would be the fairest way forward. The moment you start using the word 'trans' you have immediately created a distinction, and thus a separate category.

The word 'colonise' is very apt

@zzizzer

I thought the US military were against paying the extensive medical bills which go hand in hand with transitioning. (Did I imagine that one?)

Obama pushed for it, Trump stopped it and we all know Biden will push for it as a virtue signal. The endless see-saw, until Congress grows a pair.

noun: colonisation

• The action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.

• The action of appropriating a place or domain for one's own use.

It occurs when one nation subjugates another, conquering its population and exploiting it, often while forcing its own language and cultural values upon its people

@Justhadathought

Why don't you campaign for a separate category? That would be the fairest way forward. The moment you start using the word 'trans' you have immediately created a distinction, and thus a separate category.

Well that’s why the word cis was invented really wasn’t it. Trans people wanted to get rid of the ‘trans’ and claim the title woman or man and bio men and women were gifted the prefix of ‘cis’. Total erasure to benefit a tiny minority. Fucking bonkers

There would never be a separate category because it would be too outing to the true nature of the trans person, they would be seen for who they really are.

Yes. I was doing some work last week which involved reading a lot of post-colonial literary criticism, and I spent quite some time pondering the many, many similarities between the mechanisms of gender ideology and colonialism.

Colonial powers justified their conquests by asserting that they had a legal and religious obligation to take over the land and culture of indigenous peoples. Conquering nations cast their role as civilizing “barbaric” or “savage” nations, and argued that they were acting in the best interests of those whose lands and peoples they exploited.

Despite the power of colonisers who claimed lands that were already owned and populated by indigenous peoples, resistance is an integral part of the story of colonialism

resistance is an integral part of the story of colonialism

Yes!

I have had a post deleted and a “strike” for the words in a quote by WoLF that commented ironically on this information:

2016: Craig Telfer is ranked 200th
2017: Craig Telfer is ranked 390th
2018: Craig Telfer “transitions to female”
2029: CeCe Telfer is national champion

That part of the post was apparently OK.

I am not reattaching the screenshot of or the link to the Facebook post by the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) as it contains the “eye-roll irony” commentary.

The important part of the quote, was after all, this bit of information:

2016: Craig Telfer is ranked 200th
2017: Craig Telfer is ranked 390th
2018: Craig Telfer “transitions to female”
2019: CeCe Telfer is national champion