The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

[Ingenieur]

Starting a new thread in case the first fills up.

I can see both. The second comes with a necessary sensitivity block.

I can't see the second tweet either, so perhaps access depends on being signed up to TwiX?

Yes I can see both and all the following ones.

This might help you to see what the original tweet was referring to:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1859276515508199830.html

New article by Kara Dansky re the Democrats and their position on gender losing them support among the electorate:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5004781-democratic-leftist-feminist-criticizes/

"In 2016, President Barack Obama issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to U.S. schools, instructing them to interpret the word sex to include “gender identity” for all Title IX purposes. Democratic support for “trans” has continued apace since then...."

I hadn't fully realised it was Obama that really accelerated this.

Yeah, Obama’s initial involvement manages to sneak under the radar for some reason but Biden made more of a song and dance about it, and actively changed Title IX on his first day, so he has a much stronger association with ruining women’s rights. He took Obama’s idea and ran with it.

Many suggest that Biden's term in office has really been Obama's third term in office, and that it is hew has driven much of the cultural policy, and certainly when it comes to the trans issue.

He is the only U.S president to have stayed on living in the Capitol after his term of office came to an end,

That’s interesting. I don’t recall Bill Clinton giving public speeches admonishing the Dems for their policies and attitudes towards those who disagree with them but I’ve seen Obama do so on many occasions. It didn’t look as though anyone in the Democrats took his advice so I assumed they saw him as old news or insufficiently woke 🤔

I understand it was he that effectively elected Kamala Harris; and he that drove her campaign.

I understood that Obama was sceptical of Harris’ chances and held off endorsing her until it was clear that she had wide support among Democrat delegates.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3g32y8j772o

Whatever the truth......he has still had a huge, and undue, influence within the Democratic Party.

As for George Clooney.....who does he think he is...he seems to be on the phone to the Whitehouse all of the time, seeming to think his complaints and views matter or carry exceptional weight.

The Clooneys are a long time political family in Kentucky, though, I think? He’s related to Abraham Lincoln and his father ran (unsuccessfully) as for congress, so in local political terms he probably feels entitled, esp given his platform. Do will the schlebs would stick to their day jobs, though.

I thought Kamala had to be the nominee because otherwise the funds contributed to the Biden Harris ticket could not be used?

(Not that I'm especially anti Kamala or think she was a bad choice. I think all the Dems would have taken the same position on accommodating cross sex demands.)

Interesting piece on Seth Moulton who was recently excoriated for saying he didn't want his daughters playing sports against boys: https://www.thefp.com/p/seth-moulton-democrats-trans-issues-trump

So he is TWAW unless they decide to play a sport his daughters might take up?

And bloody hell: being pro women's rights isn't "anti trans" unless those "rights" trans people think they're missing out in are women's sex based rights. Then they still aren't "anti trans" they are about keeping women's spaces single sex

And the thing is he's still being called a genocidal Nazi anyway.

They're batshit. And unelectable

I'm glad Moulton has said something about girls' sport and the unwillingness of his party to countenance unorthodox views, however he still doesn't get it. He and Nancy Mace are fighting for the same thing - women-only spaces.

He says sex realists do not believe trans people exist - so what? If he thinks it is comparable to saying that homosexual people just need to be re-educated, perhaps he can point to the proof of this gi that supposedly everyone has? Because I can point to proof of homosexuality in humans and its incidence in animals. It's his own side that believes that homosexuals must be re-educated to believe that they are attracted to people of the same sex.

Obviously, people who believe they have a GI exist. I just don't believe that anyone does have a gender identity, but I don't care if someone believes that about him- or herself. Genderists insist that everyone - everyone - has a GI. Does that mean that genderists don't believe that sex realists exist? Are they denying our existence? We certainly know they think we need to be re-educated.

He's worried about sport because he has two daughters, one of whom will just have started school and the sport issue will affect them.

And as for his belief that there is a balance to be struck between the rights of women and the rights of males who claim to be women... Jeez. Wake up.

It's a start from Moulton, but no more than that.

I think the claim is that people who saw the they/them ad only voted Republican, or didn't vote Democrat and stayed home, because they agreed with the specific thing mentioned in the ad. They don't want taxpayers money being used to pay for sex changes for illegal immigrants who are in prison. Just that. They seem to believe that otherwise voters are fine with the trans agenda.

Fortunately, it doesn't seem possible to roll your eyes right out of your head.

I saw the "they/them" ad many times and unfortunately to the best of my knowledge everything in it was correct; I remember thinking "Shit, how embarrassing, this is all correct." Progressives already found it easy to dismiss everything Republicans said as lies so probably weren't eager to address the underlying issue, which is that Democrats are insisting that everyone engage in sex denialism, so chose to basically do an "I know you are, but what am I" with the trans prison surgeries thing, which also occurred under the Trump administration.

re-educated to believe that they are attracted to people of the same gender*, not sex.

All very á la the prosecuting QC in the court case over ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’. ‘It is a book you would even want your wife or your servants to read.” The gallery which Seth addresses doesn’t seem to include the equal rights of women and girls to full recognition. In any, and every, aspect of our lives. The full human (with corresponding entitlement of agency) is never the woman or girl.

The good Seth has delivered his support on the extent of what he has decided women are. Subject to the wishes of what men and pliable women (including Seth) pronounce. To be recognised, or respected, as no more than a notion in any man’s head. And if any man chooses to proclaim himself to be a woman, who do actual women think they are, or what right do they think they have, to point out that no man changes into a woman. Ever.

Maybe Seth will voice this view on sports, as they take place in public. Seth can’t pretend to be fair minded towards women and girls when everyone is witnessing to what it is he would be complicit. Maybe Seth (and others like him) feel less open to scrutiny of their stance when the damage to women can be kept under the radar of public scrutiny and mainstream reporting. Out of sight (and therefore public scrutiny) and out of mind is acceptable. The threats, and discomfort, of any man (with any intention) having the opportunity to access women’s toilets, changing rooms, refuges and shelters etc. The abuse of locking women up in prison with men, many of whom are sex offenders. The cuckooing (by men) of actual women in representation of women’s groups, boards etc. Removal of opportunities and fairness, safety and dignity in other instances from women and girls don’t appear to be as troubling to Seth and his ilk.

I may be wrong of course. Maybe Seth will come to stand up for the injustices and injuries against women and girls, rather than the desires and entitlements of some men to trample all over the rights of women and girls. Maybe Seth just doesn’t know the extent of damage this anti-scientific, misogynistic ideology inflicts on women and girls. I’ll wager he’ll be ever so surprised (and exhibit great shock) when he publicly finds out.

Seth, of course, can only think of women in terms of their relationship to a man (he is worried about his daughters) but if he'd had only boys he'd be oblivious?
Despite being, presumably, married to a woman who squished those daughters from her nether regions. He may even have seen that happen.

Women are human beings and deserve all the rights that come with that, regardless of their relationship with or to some bloke.

I think he knows he's been found out.......On one hand wholeheartedly repeating the TWAW slogans and enabling policy to further that, but on the otherhand declaring he knows that males remain male even after transition if they happen to be playing sport

He's stuck his neck out and found he's become a target for hate. This could destabilise his career and his reputation in the Democrat party; so he's picked the easier option of effectively apologising and back-tracking.