Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Rolfe said:
This is just fantastic. I don't know who wrote it but it sure as hell wasn't Trump. It's incisive, clear and comprehensive.

www.whitehouse.gov

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7301 of title 5, United
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov
Click to expand...
Is it though? I only skimmed it, and spotted this section where the author seems to lose their train of thought while specifying the newly mandated definitions, going off on an unnecessary tirade that, through poor word choice, seems to accidentally declare that 'gender ideology' henceforth replaces 'sex', and officially permits false claims and requires institutions to regard them as true...

and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:
Click to expand...
(a) “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”
Click to expand...
(f) “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.
Click to expand...
 
Pixel42 said:
Nah. Only those who have bought into gender ideology have any problem telling the difference between men and women.
If Trump et al want to remove women's rights, they didn't need to do this first. Or at all. Women were successfully discriminated against for centuries without the need for strict definitions.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "if"? They have made it clear that they do.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
"Anyone celebrating this news should probably be aware that they're only so keen to create a firm legal definition of a woman for when they start passing other laws down the line to take women's rights away", according to a TRA on the other forum I belong to.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's hilarious, considering TRAs are wholly dedicated to taking women's rights away.
 
Rolfe said:
This is a fairly long article discussing how control of language leads to control of the agenda, which is something we've been over a few times.

www.thefemalecategory.com

How Media Propagates Gender Ideology

Gender ideology is the nail in the coffin of the Fourth Estate
www.thefemalecategory.com www.thefemalecategory.com

I remember objecting to being obliged to refer to a man as "she" right at the beginning of this thread, complaining that by enforcing this edict, the forum was pre-judging the debate in favour of one side. It's a bigger point than I probably realised at the time. Not only is this compelled speech colouring the debate ("trans girl forced to use the boys' toilets" suggests a very different situation from "boy dressed as a girl forced to use the boys' toilets" for example), but it's clouding public perceptions of the debate. It appears that it's still the case that a chunk of people faced with a public opinion poll question asking about whether a "trans woman" should be allowed to do something, think that a "trans woman" is a woman who wants to be a man.

It's hard-wired in our understanding of language. Words aren't just neutral place-holders, they carry connotations with them. In my opinon we need to take back clear language and name things for what they are.
Click to expand...
This ventures into a broader category of discussion, but it's also part and parcel of psy-ops and propaganda techniques. Lots of people think that "propaganda" is just telling lies, but it's not. It's a lot more subtle than that. It starts with a core of something that most people believe without proof, then it begins to subtly manipulate that message, transforming it in the process. It relies on repetition - because if something gets repeated enough times, it becomes "common knowledge" and won't be questioned. It's all about altering perception and expectation, and it relies very heavily on both manipulation of language and visual representations.

So yeah - it starts with pronouns, and an appeal to being nice and compassionate - something that resonates with pretty much everyone. It relies on persistent visual representations of transgender identified males who pass, and hand-waves away those who do not even come close to passing. Then it starts chipping away at our understanding of the words "woman" and "man", and redefining them over time, and it repeatedly ties that to social ostracism as phobia or hate if we don't accept that Eddie Izzard in a bad-fitting mini skirt is indistinguishable from an average female human being. It gets repeated enough in plausible scenarios and in smaller venues that it becomes relatively commonly accepted by a lot of people who aren't affected, and never actually see it personally.

And in the end you have a whole pile of unthinking converts who will parrot "transwomen are women" and "they've always been in your bathrooms and you never even noticed" and all of the reframing that happens.

And not a whit of it is true. Even if it started out as well-intentioned, the end result is a tyrannical dogmatism that would make the Spanish Inquisition pecker up.
 
Rolfe said:
This is just fantastic. I don't know who wrote it but it sure as hell wasn't Trump. It's incisive, clear and comprehensive.

www.whitehouse.gov

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7301 of title 5, United
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov
Click to expand...
Written by a feminist lawyer, although I can't recall their name at the moment.

Because you know, Trump is a horrible misogynist sexist, and the entire Republican party is made up solely of white heterosexual males who have females and anyone with more melanin content than your average Welshman.
 
d4m10n said:
Republicans, by contrast, want to strip women of rights once held and know exactly whom they are targeting.
Click to expand...
Such as?

I know, I know... OMG abortion! But the supreme court already decided that this is a state-level issue, and is not supported either for or against at the federal level. So at this point, GOP would need to gain control of every state and make it illegal in every state. But that's not feasible or plausible. Or they'd need to actually propose a law to outlaw abortion across the entire US - and even with simple majority, they don't have enough support to get that passed. This isn't an issue that is uniformly supported by all Republicans, by the way. And just in case we've all forgotten - abortion rules are still very highly divided among females, with the vast majority preferring a limit on at-will abortions somewhere around viability.

But beyond that... what exactly do you think Republicans are looking to strip away? Do you think Reps are planning to take away the right to vote? To own property? To have jobs at a fair wage under non-discriminatory conditions? Do you think they're looking to decriminalize sexual assault or rape? Remove female rights to privacy?

Seriously, what rights do you think Reps are intent on stripping from females?

As opposed to, you know, the actual rights and protections that Dems ACTUALLY tossed down the drain over the past few years?
 
Abooga said:
Well, it was written by "May Mailman", former Director of Independent Women's Law Center, now Deputy Assistant to the President.
Click to expand...

Unrelated to your post... I giggle every time I see your avatar, Abooga. Apparently I'm a thirteen year old, and despite logically knowing that it's a building in front of a red sun... I see something inappropriate. Falls into the same category as this one:
1737747919966.png
 
Emily's Cat said:
Written by a feminist lawyer, although I can't recall their name at the moment.
Click to expand...
Her name is May Mailman and she works for the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative non-profit that advocates "equity feminism" as opposed to what they describe as "radical feminism" - their position is that mainstream feminism is unnecessary because women have already achieved full equality with men. The organisation arose out of a group of women who supported Clarence Thomas when he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill, if you remember that far back.
 
Matthew Best said:
Her name is May Mailman and she works for the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative non-profit that advocates "equity feminism" as opposed to what they describe as "radical feminism" - their position is that mainstream feminism is unnecessary because women have already achieved full equality with men. The organisation arose out of a group of women who supported Clarence Thomas when he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill, if you remember that far back.
Click to expand...
More or less, I would say that legislatively females have achieved equality with males. Socially I think there are still some challenges - but I also don't think they're something that legislation would alter.

I don't think females have equality judicially. Females have a significant judicial advantage when it comes to divorce and custody, for example... and a disadvantage when it comes to prosecution for sexual assault, rape, and domestic violence.
 
Emily's Cat said:
...what exactly do you think Republicans are looking to strip away?
Click to expand...
Any form of contraception which pro-life groups have referred to as abortifacient, for starters.
Emily's Cat said:
And just in case we've all forgotten - abortion rules are still very highly divided among females, with the vast majority preferring a limit on at-will abortions somewhere around viability.
Click to expand...
That was the standard under Roe.
 
Here's an interesting stat: 15% of the women in US federal prison are trans women (i.e. men).

BOP Statistics: Inmate Gender

www.bop.gov www.bop.gov

(At least, I think that's what they are saying. As always it depends what they mean by "female", which isn't easy to figure out. It's conceivable they mean only 7.5% of women in jail are men. Either way, they are way over-represented, either because they are more likely to commit crimes, or because a bunch of men are prepared to pretend to be women in order to get into women's prisons.)
 
d4m10n said:
Relevant to the OP Transgender athletes face blanket ban at Olympics https://search.app/Ve5JoPewnpAKM8pT8
Click to expand...
theprestige said:
Suicide hotlines around the world are not bracing for impact.
Click to expand...

Rolfe said:
Of course, they face no such thing. Most of them are eligible to compete in their correct sex category. If they can qualify. The only issue is women who are doping on testosterone.
Click to expand...
Worth pointing out that the Telegraph headline is misleading in another way.

There is actually no policy being put forward. All the Telegraph is doing is pointing out that there are two candidates for IOC president; Sebastian Coe who has said he wants to make all sports in the Olympics follow the rules in athletics and swimming, and now another candidate has also said things along the same lines.

The Telegraph doesn't really give many details of the process of the election of the new president, how many candidates there are, etc...

Coe, who is the president of World Athletics and a leading candidate to succeed Thomas Bach as president of the IOC, has long made it clear that he would bring similar clarity to gender policy across all Olympic sports.

Among the other leading candidates is Kirsty Coventry, a member of the IOC executive board since 2018, who now also supports an Olympic-wide policy similar to athletics or swimming.
Click to expand...
It suggests that having TWO candidates instead of one with this position makes it more likely to result in a ban on, say, transwomen competing in women's sports, but with no further details given surely we could assume that TWO could split the votes.

Now I am sure someone could say, "Well akshually, that's not how the IOC presidency works..." Maybe not, I have no idea. I think the Telegraph should at least inform us of this, because it is not a very useful article as it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom