The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

[Ingenieur]

Starting a new thread in case the first fills up.

Can I ask why @PinkChesnut you are so motivated to defend this ideology even at the cost of alienating people to the extent that they vote for the bad outcomes you have outlined?

Maybe for a lot of American voters, Trump was President before, and the sky didn't fall in for them, life was OK, and they don't like the Dems and their talk much anyway...

As you said in your earlier post, the voting numbers in 2020 appear to be an anomaly compared to 2008, 2012 and 2016. Why were they so much higher than in previous years?

I'm in the UK and I'm no psephologist or demographic expert. Were there more registered voters in 2020? If so, why?

In person I find these arguments work very well to change hearts and minds. Online not as much, but it's always fun to engage in healthy debate.

In person I find these arguments work very well to change hearts and minds.

Thing is, I find my arguments do the same. You're in a bubble, like everyone else, including me.

But the fact is, if you look at the swing states, the evidence suggests Trump's trans adverts were influential.

I mean, the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether the Democrats need to have an honest conversation about gender identity. So as a "centrist", what are your thoughts on that @PinkChesnut?

The sex offender was trans.

This election was largely about the economy and immigration, gender ideology took a backseat and may have blipped in the polls but that was really not the main issue or even a big enough issue to make a difference.

We saw more anti-trans officials lose seats or lose to the incumbents than the reverse.

I didn't see a single lawn sign about gender issues in my deep red area, but plenty about cost of groceries and immigration.

But were they a sex offender because they were trans?

Exactly. The sex offender was a man who got his penis out next to a little girl in a women only spa. This was only possible because he claimed to be a woman.

But were they a sex offender because they were trans?

Who knows? Why is that relevant? He only got in because he claimed to be.

And if someone asked you to refer to them as PinkChestnut because they just feel so gosh-darn PinkChestnutty, because they just know when they look at you that you and them are really really the same inside, that's ok by you, yes? Even if their idea of what it's like to be PinkChestnut is pretty superficial, kind of offensive even?

And when a few weeks later they come round to use your car because it's PinkChestnut's car and they are PinkChestnut, everyone knows that, the proof is clear because everyone calls them PinkChestnut, you will be fine with that because that's just good manners?

Manners are an interesting thing. When they are reciprocal they make the world a little nicer. But some people take advantage of manners, especially the manners of women who have been told from birth to put others' needs first. Some people rudely grasp and take, taking advantage of the manners of others being too polite, too well mannered to challenge them.

So the point is not, has never been, that people want to be referred to a certain way.

The point is that they want to be referred to as something they are not, and if society accepts that it has consequences for the people who actually are that thing.

This election was largely about the economy and immigration, gender ideology took a backseat and may have blipped in the polls but that was really not the main issue or even a big enough issue to make a difference.

People don't like it in the main though, you'd agree? As we discussed on this thread earlier, the idea that men are women or that gender identity should trump sex is also something that is such a blatant gaslighting lie that it makes people seem untrustworthy even if people aren't that bothered about the actual issue.

And I think rather than anything else that's why the ad hit home in swing states more than other places.

Have to be honest, the attempt to equate someone who is trans to someone who thinks they are me isn't working for me as a convincing argument.

I'm a rape survivor and a CSA survivor. I have shared many a restroom with trans women and it hasn't given me pause. They are just people. Some good, some bad. Most good. We have different lived experiences but it doesn't take away from me or bother me if they think they have the same experience as I have.

I'm a rape survivor and a CSA survivor. I have shared many a restroom with trans women and it hasn't given me pause.

Polls suggest most women feel differently.

I could produce a twenty-year long multi peer review study for you in support of my argument and it wouldn't matter to you.

Can you? Go on then :)

Sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that sport shouldn't have different categories for men and women?

Sport has different categories based on sex in order to protect the participation of women in sport because in almost all physical activities - which most sports are - men have inbuilt physical advantages created by the presence of testosterone during and post-puberty.

Those advantages (eg height, limb length, strength, bone density) are not reduced sufficiently by hormone therapy to allow fair competition between women and "transwomen".

Every transwoman competing in a women's event is simply eroding women's participation in sport.

Fortunately I think most international sports organisations (World Swimming, World Athletics, ITU) now recognise this even though many US sporting organisations do not.

Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage | Sports Medicine

PS - I'm not saying that transwomen aren't human or aren't nice people or are all nasty people. I'm saying a transwoman is not a woman and can't expect to be treated as a woman in all respects.

Like I said, why would I bother? You have a laundry list of arguments pre-prepped as to why you'll disregard any evidence that contradicts your views.

I actually am suggesting that women are excluded from men's sports to deny us access to funding and opportunity, but that's just my feeling on it!

Like I said, why would I bother?

Why not try? You might enlighten us with your killer arguments! Because I assume you have some evidence or reasoned arguments to back up your rhetoric, right?

I won't "disregard" genuine evidence, I'll assess it and give you my opinion on it.

So as a "centrist" on gender identity ideology, should the Dems change their approach at all @PinkChesnut?

Please don't bring this back to the tedious US obsession with "restrooms". While the importance of female people having spaces away from male regardless of how those men identify is undeniable, the right of female people to their own name, political voice and history is far more important than simply who gets to pee where.

Have to be honest, the attempt to equate someone who is trans to someone who thinks they are me isn't working for me as a convincing argument

What, in your understanding, does someone who is trans experience that is not simply the equivalent of "thinking they are PinkChestnut"?

Unlikely. Reading evidence that is contrary to our views just further entrenches our views.

today.tamu.edu/2020/12/01/your-brains-built-in-biases-insulate-your-beliefs-from-contradictory-facts/

No, anti-trans laws are deeply unpopular here.