Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

A reminder how the battle lines were drawn on male assaults female by Biden decree.

20 1 2021

As usual, you are misrepresenting something that you do not understand.

This Executive Order was about discrimination in the workplace, in housing, in access to healthcare among other things. Nothing in that EO mandated that biological males be allowed to participate in female sports, nor did in force any sporting organizations to do so.

In fact, there are numerous state sporting organizations, and even state legislatures that have enacted bans or restrictions. They are

Idaho,
Montana,
North Dakota,
Wyoming,
South Dakota,
Iowa,
Utah,
Kentucky,
West Virginia,
Arizona,
Kansas,
Arkansas,
North Carolina,
Oklahoma,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
Florida

All of the above ban biological males from participating in female sports. a further five states have gone even further. They have also banned biological females from competing in male sports.

Missouri,
Tennessee,
South Carolina
Alabama
Texas

Interestingly, even the NCAA has gone to a sport-by-sport policy.

None of the above would have been possible if the EO did what you claim it does.
 
The Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre that preferred rape victims go unsupported rather than sending them to a separate centre that excluded men has been forced to pay a worker £70,000 and issue a proper public apology for her constructive dismissal.

"Judge McFatridge ruled it was "extraordinary" that ERCC had not referred any victims to Beira’s Place and that this seemed "linked inextricably with the matters which led to the discrimination against the claimant"

"Ms Wadhwa – a tran woman -stepped down from her their job after a Rape Crisis Scotland report found she they failed to behave professionally and that the needs of survivors were not prioritised."

Gosh, a man putting their needs before those of women. Just fancy that

 
The Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre that preferred rape victims go unsupported rather than sending them to a separate centre that excluded men has been forced to pay a worker £70,000 and issue a proper public apology for her constructive dismissal.

"Judge McFatridge ruled it was "extraordinary" that ERCC had not referred any victims to Beira’s Place and that this seemed "linked inextricably with the matters which led to the discrimination against the claimant"

"Ms Wadhwa – a tran woman -stepped down from her their job after a Rape Crisis Scotland report found she they failed to behave professionally and that the needs of survivors were not prioritised."

Gosh, a man putting their needs before those of women. Just fancy that

Bloody good! About time these cosplayers received some consequences for their disgusting behaviour.
 
We have separate Men's and Women's sports because it is a general understanding that Men have several biological advantages to women in athletics. So why would we let biological men who dress as women compete against biological women in sports? What happened to the concept of fairness?

Why not just abandon all sex-segregated sports?
 
Reply to Smartcooky:

I was idle enough to assume Abigail Schrier had it right.
I have not waded through the document but will do.
Thanks for alerting if there is an anomaly.
We know the title 9 revision in September had another bite at the cherry but it seems this also fell short of requiring men and boys in women's and girls' sports.
Trump is hoping to set aside all doubt.
Let us see.
I doubt law suits to prevent this would be popular with anyone, so it looks like a done deal.
 
Last edited:
My lefty friends, including those who support trans rights, do not think that trans women should compete on women's sports teams, in most cases.
Well, except for one friend who sees sports league segregation as an entirely social thing.

There is, and always has been, more than two positions on this issue.
That's true (that there are more than two positions), but that one is still seems forbidden on the left. A couple congressman - Seth Moulton (MA) & Tom Suozzi (NY) have apparently taken some tentative steps in this direction (sports issue) and have been attacked by trans-activists on X: 1, 2

Bret Stephens has an op-ed in the NYT on the democratic defeat in which he notes rigidity of the trans-activists:

The dismissiveness with which liberals treated these concerns was part of something else: dismissiveness toward the moral objections many Americans have to various progressive causes. Concerned about gender transitions for children or about biological males playing on girls’ sports teams? You’re a transphobe. Dismayed by tedious, mandatory and frequently counterproductive D.E.I. seminars that treat white skin as almost inherently problematic? You’re racist. Irritated by new terminology that is supposed to be more inclusive but feels as if it’s borrowing a page from “1984”?
 
The Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre that preferred rape victims go unsupported rather than sending them to a separate centre that excluded men has been forced to pay a worker £70,000 and issue a proper public apology for her constructive dismissal.

"Judge McFatridge ruled it was "extraordinary" that ERCC had not referred any victims to Beira’s Place and that this seemed "linked inextricably with the matters which led to the discrimination against the claimant"

"Ms Wadhwa – a tran woman -stepped down from her their job after a Rape Crisis Scotland report found she they failed to behave professionally and that the needs of survivors were not prioritised."

Gosh, a man putting their needs before those of women. Just fancy that

I'm thrilled that Wadhwa is no longer in charge of Rape Crisis Scotland. It's been nutty watching this over the past several years. Crazy that a male managed to get a role that is explicitly reserved for a female in the first place. And even crazier that they stayed this long in the role after it became clear that they had completely failed to disclose their sex, and didn't even have a GRC!
 
I'm thrilled that Wadhwa is no longer in charge of Rape Crisis Scotland. It's been nutty watching this over the past several years. Crazy that a male managed to get a role that is explicitly reserved for a female in the first place. And even crazier that they stayed this long in the role after it became clear that they had completely failed to disclose their sex, and didn't even have a GRC!

My own view is that they knew perfectly well from the start, but welcomed the application with open arms so as to burnish their woke credentials. I know he looks fairly effeminate in photos, but these men rarely pass seamlessly at close quarters in real life.

In other news, Sandy Brindley still has a job.
 
I am struggling to see the 'evil' in this. Nor do I get why someone would be 'terrified' either.
Agreed. But the administration did proclaim Levine (left) the "first female" in their position. That is an obvious lie. & I don't think that helped Democrats cause in this election (along with Levine's trans-activism on behalf of children).
 
To be fair, if you start to discriminate on LOOKS, that's a whole other rabbithole.
Would you please elaborate? To some extent, I think NOT discriminating on the basis of looks is difficult (& often subconscious). And I do think that's relevant to the discrimination that trans-identified people face (e.g. post 947 above).
 
Last edited:
The message I was responding to was about denying someone a woman job because they presumably wouldn't look woman enough from a close range. That kind of discrimination. And that I find to be a dangerous precedent, because there are women with male features and vice-versa. Give them the ol' cheek swab like Samson suggested, or whatever, but unless you're hiring a stripper, or a porn star, or such, starting to deny people employment based on looks just doesn't sit right with me.
 
The message I was responding to was about denying someone a woman job because they presumably wouldn't look woman enough from a close range. That kind of discrimination. And that I find to be a dangerous precedent, because there are women with male features and vice-versa. Give them the ol' cheek swab like Samson suggested, or whatever, but unless you're hiring a stripper, or a porn star, or such, starting to deny people employment based on looks just doesn't sit right with me.

The job was as head of a rape crisis centre. That is the specific example given in the Equalities Act of a case where it would be legitimate and proportionate to specify that the job was for a woman only. And indeed it was explicitly advertised as such. Nevertheless he chose to apply, pretending to be a woman.

If you think that it's OK to have male people in a centre set up to help women who have been raped, they you're seriously lacking in empathy. And frankly, the very last male people women want to see in a situation like that are male people LARPing as women. That is absolute red flag territory.
 

Back
Top Bottom