Republican Congresswoman bring forward Bill to ban transwomen from female facilities in Congress

[Hoardasurass]

The quoted comments from the congresswoman are brilliant

First trans member lawmaker blasts GOP after bill blocks bathroom use https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14098953/nancy-mace-trans-lawmaker-bathroom-capitol-hill-sarah-mcbride.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

Back to the long long arguments about whether the 'War Between the States' was about states' rights or about slavery? Both, obviously, and the Democrats and the Republicans have argued both sides over the years. Just at the moment, the Republicans are coming across as having at least some effective pragmatists who might be able to do good work in specific areas, despite very odd ducks at the top of the administration, while the Democrats, many of them excellent people, seem theory-driven to the point where they have lost contact with reality.

I say that as a lifelong leftie looking across the pond in some confusion.

Yup, the Republicans sound like a right bunch of wankers. Probably why they lost the election 🤔...oh wait.

I mean, they won by not a very large margin, in a context where incumbent parties all over the world are losing. No one voted for them because of women's rights. The gender gap was large. It was about blame for inflation. And there were explicit appeals to sexism and the manosphere. But let's go on thinking that trans issues are the only women's rights we need to be concerned about. I'm sure if you're dying in childbirth it will be a consolation to know that the hospital said "pregnant women" instead of "pregnant people."

how many credible accusations of sexual assault do we have now, between Trump and his cabinet nominees, including the one who just dropped out? And Nancy Mace wants to tell us it's Sarah McBride we need to fear?

But let's go on thinking that trans issues are the only women's rights we need to be concerned about

Luckily no one has done that. Isn’t that a relief?

I don't disagree with you regarding the Republicans but they won. As you say not by a large margin. A margin that might have been created by the relatively small number of people who voted the way they did because of the issues caused by gender ideology. In addition to the small number (relatively) who couldn't stomach voting for the Demoncrats because of this and stayed home.

The they/them ad was very effective.

And continuing to broadcast the same message as before rather than listening to the counter-arguments will not help them to regroup. The campaign for the 2028 election should have started but they still seem to be fighting the 2024 one.

I don't know much about US politics. But I agree with the woman saying that women need single sex spaces.

People who try to argue with whataboutery are going to lose.

I don't doubt there are other issues on which I would disagree with Nancy Mace.

But if you're telling me that I must accept that men can be women and use women's spaces, then I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to accept anything else that you say.

It is foundational. It's a matter of honesty, integrity, common sense, rationality, fairness, justice and truth.

That is why this issue is losing elections for the left.

We can discuss disagreements on the details of abortion law, or the intricacies of state politics, the US.constitution, etc.

But I cannot and will not accept that men can become women or that women must be forced to accept males in their spaces. Not ever.

Men in a position to change laws that affect all women and girls, who want access to female spaces for reasons we are not allowed to state, are most definitely the men we need to fear. Especially those that take trophy photos in women's toilets.

No, but a heck of a lot of people are saying here that they are more important.

I don’t see anyone who has done that either. The definition of woman and not undermining that underpins all women’s rights though. So protecting that is important.

I got addicted to US politics podcasts before the election. One of which was Majority Report. Their Co host Emma Vriggeland was on Piers Morgan recently, having a meltdown about transphobia. She made a jibe about single sex toilets 🚻 being Separate But Equal in a reference to apartheid.

Sounds a bit disrespectful to me. Like all the stuff about trans genocide when we are in the middle of a real one. But back on the podcast her colleagues were gushing with praise. They thought the apartheid comparison was so apt. The comments were no better alas. It is quite depressing for us old lefties. The Democrats need to regain consciousness or Trump's term will be followed by 8 years of JD Vance.

If the definition of women means men then men will have the right to an abortion, or not as the case may be. So actually being able to define 'woman' is indeed an important point of law.

Yes.

For women to have rights, we must be a category that is defined clearly as distinct from men.

If we don't have a word that defines 'women' as separate from and different to men, then we can have no rights written in law that protect women.

Women's rights are in addition to basic human rights. Feminists sought and won these rights because women face disadvantage because of their sex.

It's the basis of 'equity' - addressing disadvantage.

What libfemmery and genderist arguments do is based on the idea of 'equality'. Which sounds fine until you think about it for five minutes.

'Equality' would mean all spaces were mixed sex, all sports were mixed sex, there would be no positive discrimination and no way to treat men and women differently in law.

Some people are saying that trans issues, with all the associated implications for women as a whole, are deciding factors for them. That’s a personal choice.

I agree with them that, if you can’t be clear what a woman is, if you accept that some “women” are actually men, then all women’s rights are compromised.

Brava ArabellaScott!

Reclaiming single sex toilets is the beginning of the fightback against GII, which is fundamentally destructive of the understanding of women as a sex class and therefore of women having sex-based rights.

And a propos of the right to choose - at State level, many women vote in favour, unaware that they are also voting for gender identity to supersede sex in the constitution of their state. (This is taken from a Kara Dansky interview and she named NY as one of the states this was true of.) Dentons playbook style.
So the Democrats are making women pay for the right to choose by effectively giving up all their sex-based rights and protections. And not even telling them.

Brava again.

Just to repeat for the ones at the back of the room:
In order to have the opportunity to participate equally in public life, we need additional sex-based rights.

I would add: these rights are not privileges, nor is the need for them temporary. Even if sexism and misogyny disappear overnight, we are always going to need additional, sex-based rights because we will always be women, not men.

It may not seem like it now, but allowing each State to decide on its own abortion laws may turn out to have been the best possible stable outcome in the context of the debate in the USA. Roe Vs Wade was always in danger of being overturned and it could have been replaced by Draconian federal law prohibiting all termination for any reason. There will be some Republican states in which there is room for a compromise. Some Republican legislators would at least allow termination in the case of rape, for example.
Some pro-choice advocates want the right to terminate up to birth. I don't know how prevalent that view is, but that's as extreme as opposing termination under any circumstances. Giving up on that would help.
If the two sides talked more instead of painting each other as Godless baby murderers or sadistic torturers of women with nothing in between, there might be solutions in some states.

More abuse from TRAs.

https://x.com/marycatedelvey/status/1860384194351812937?t=k659hWLtZ-2Ifk-IqJZkYg&s=19

And people say, why aren't you on Twitter?

And people say such a vulnerable, most oppressed minority who wouldn't harm a fly.

Indeed!

And this is the issue when someone has only a blunt understanding of equality. The rights that we need as female people is about equity not equality as a flat concept.

Perhaps it is confusing for some when they see the word ‘additional’. Because they only seem additional from a superficial perspective when what they are there to enable is fundamental equality. Equality of opportunity for instance. However, people who cannot understand this will grasp on to the word ‘additional’ to weaponise it.

Indeed, it takes a moment to realise that giving women equality/equal rights with men would remove (or fail to provide) things like maternity leave because men don’t need maternity leave.

Women need specific rights/legal protections based on our biology being different to male biology. Our society/public life has been built around and to accommodate the male lifecycle, therefore women need accommodations to be able to participate fully in a society built around men’s needs. And we need these accommodations to be legally required or else businesses and organisations won’t bother to provide them.