This is why so many women voted Trump

[BabyLlamaZen]

I’m not saying it’s right, I’m not saying it’s worth the horrors of the Trump administration (and what other women’s rights will be abolished). However, I can also empathise. Books like this are everywhere in baby sections of bookshops in USA. My american friend is naturally more conservative than myself although hated Trump and didn’t vote for him previously (she abstained and then she went Biden although she says she seriously regrets) and this time she voted Trump. She said this stuff is now everywhere and it’s constant. She also showed me a baby’s ABC book which included B for bisexual (and literally then described it as people who are sexually attracted to either gender). For babies.

"There are only, and exactly two, gametes (sperm and egg), therefore only, and exactly two, sexes. Small gamete producers are known as males, large gamete producers as female."

This is not true no. There are plenty of people whose bodies do not produce gametes at all.

Lol!!

As sleight of hands go it's a bit crap.

This is not true no. There are plenty of people whose bodies do not produce gametes at all

A vanishingly small number of people don't. Not plenty.

I didn't mean to start the nonsense again, I just felt it would be helpful to untangle the specious arguments and misinformation for lurkers. I won't be taking the bait so as not to derail the thread again. I can see I am being misrepresented by the comedy poster, so my only request is to please read what I did say, not what they say I said.

Yes all this stuff doesn't help their side win

So we're back to DSD's again?

If your body doesn't produce gametes at all you have a diagnosable disorder. It doesn't mean people can change sex.....

Thank you.
Good idea and point taken.

It's this guff that results in men/boys in female sporting catagories, women's prisons, and so on.

Many ordinary people are fed up of it. If it contributed to some people voting for Trump, then I'm not surprised.

It's always interesting to actually ask questions, if anyone sticks around long enough to answer them obvs. Usually they don't.

(And In this case, they aren't actually being answered, they're being deflected.)

But people who hear this bollocks at a higher level will always have those questions.

And to start with, TRAs generated an esoteric framework to everything. Don't ask, it's bigoted.

But now people are asking, because they're realising it's nonsense.

And once you ask, it's game over.

Yep. Keep pushing and people will vote against it.

Just fed up with being asked to lie, not see what they can see in some Orwellian McCarthy set up

And finally it's voted out

Ah Snowy. I was building a post just like yours because of all the fuckwittery on this thread because I am just catching up.

Great that you and others tackled it and to be fair, it probably needs to be repeated nearly every page for the new readers who will simply read the last page or two and miss it.

From experience, the addition of 'even if they don't produce those gametes' to 'having a body formed around the creation of those gametes' tends to stop the 'what aboutery' that we have just seen. I am not meaning to be condescending, but just speaking from experience that the cycling around and around on that issue is mind numbing. And it will go around and around.

Because as pointed out, this is a sleight of hand tactic about language.

So, I see people with CAIS have once again been weaponised to destabilise the language around sex categories.

Yes, fair point, but it's too late for me to edit, unfortunately. I think any sensible reader would understand the difference between "designed to produce" and "produces". Anyone who claims they are the same thing isn't arguing in good faith, so not worth my time.

Yep. It is indeed a great demonstration as you say.

I thought you'd covered it. BUT this is what happens when a poster will take apart a paragraph and not give proper consideration to the full paragraph.

It is a pretty good demo of how they think their deconstruction of language works to explain their flawed deconstruction of sex categories.

Not being as restrained as some people, I'm not able to let two points go unanswered.

First:
"The sex of an individual = whether your body is designed around the production of large gametes or designed around the production of small gametes.
sex is not always assigned on the basis of this. Sex is usually assigned on the basis of the external appearance of the genitals, which usually, but not always, corresponds to gametes."

Sex, for the millionth time, is not assigned. It is observed. It is of course possible to make a mistake in observation - but sex can be observed repeatedly, reducing the chance of being mistaken, and also, crucially, sex can be tested repeatably and reliably.

Second:
"There are only, and exactly two, gametes (sperm and egg), therefore only, and exactly two, sexes. Small gamete producers are known as males, large gamete producers as female.
This is not true no. There are plenty of people whose bodies do not produce gametes at all. Furthermore , there are people “known as” female whose bodies do not produce large gametes"

Look back at the first point to understand the context: "... whether your body is designed around the production of large or small gametes ..." "Small gamete producers" and "large gamete producers" are both shorthand for the above. The fact that my wife, the mother of our children, no longer produces large gametes does not make her any less female. And the fact that I am no longer able to impregnate her does not make me any less male. Our bodies were "designed" for reproduction, and were able to fulfil that function; if they had not developed fully for that purpose, we would still have been a woman and a man.

I wrote 'will/should be produced' back on pg 18. I think a certain poster must have glossed over it.

I will remember your longer, but much clearer language in future.

I put the Democrat loss at the feet of Harris plus Waltz, Biden and whoever’s in charge of coming up with policy for their party.

And I think they started losing this election long before the campaign started: voters were not happy with what they saw Democrat politicians prioritising.

I don’t think her campaign helped either because Harris as a VP was not very noticeable or interesting, and then she tried to convince the public that Biden wasn’t suffering from health decline, and then she was chosen without any form of competition with other candidates which meant she had no real chance to stress test her ideas before taking them to the voters.

The last four years wasn’t the best the Democratic Party could do for everyone in America, they’ve done better in the past and their future policy offerings didn’t have wide appeal either.

Quite. But they will never accept that they will have to find some reason, any reason otherwise they would have to own their idiocy.

And when the 'answers' are the tedious, risible nonsense that has been posted on here.

Yeah… sadly that longer version came about exact from this type of dissected whataboutery. It really is a demonstration of how it is done.

Remember the ‘biological female’ fuckwittery by some people. Ie. They argued they were ‘biological’ and not a robot and that their changed passport said they were female. Therefore they were someone who was ‘biological female’. This is part of the same tactic.

Disconnect a sentence from the paragraph and even though the very sentence before it was clear, some people will then try to argue anyway.

Pointing out that a male child can be given female hormones to force his body to mimic female development is not the "gotcha" you seem to think it is.

If you keep repeating these sorts of accusations then you'll never really understand why Kamala wasn't as successful as you assumed shed be.
I see people such as Nancy Pelosi are now trying to blame Biden. They are turning the searchlight everywhere except on themselves

Maternity protections and better pay would help even more. You do realise that most women want to be mothers?

https://www.thefp.com/p/democrats-kamala-abortion-trans-trump

Men in women’s sport and hormonal modification stood of trans identified children is unpopular.

I don’t think the Democrats realised HOW unpopular, because of the shouting and name calling that happens whenever someone criticises the trans agenda.

A poster on this thread epitomises the frustration:

Voter: there should be no boys in girls’ sport.

TRA: But they’re girls, not boys.

Voter : Well, they’re boys biologically

TRA : what do you mean by “biological”?

Voter : well, their chromosomes are male

TRA : chromosomes frequently aren’t XY or XX and there are some children who are completely androgen insensitive in spite of XY chromosomes and something something clownfish and 3rd grade biology and something something BIGOT!

Voter : looks at boys in girls’ sport and votes Trump.

Riley Gaines posted this on Xitter.

'A grown man telling another grown man how to speak. Normal people are tired of the policing of language. Call it as you see it and never apologize. Have they learned nothing from the election?'

https://x.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1855115295230152824

I remember when Riley Gaines was physically assaulted and had to barricade herself in a room at SFSU after trying to discuss fair, sex-based sport of women and girls.

interestingly, Riley posted recently in reply to KJK that she, Riley, was inspired by KJK shouts of “It’s a man!” when Lia Thomas was competing.