US Government rules on Gender Identity

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby brekin » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:50 pm

Philos wrote:“People are more than their sexual organs and have varied and personal relationships with their bodies.”
If that is the case then there shouldn't be any issue with the Vagina Monologues, right?
If the complaint is that non vagina wielding women feel excluded, well, technically everyone who doesnt have a vagina is excluded. Still doesnt stop the majority of people seeing the show. And if the differential for being a woman is no longer having a vagina, then there should be zero issues with this show.


Yes. But I think an ideology withers if it doesn't have constant targets. And as mostly liberal people will indulge such thinking, they have to be increasingly liberal targets. Literally almost anything can "represent the binary representation of gender" but supposed liberating, progressive, & daring liberal pieces are especially big targets in the progressive arms race:

“The VM represents a binary representation of gender, implying that in order to be a woman you must have a vagina, which is an antiquated way of viewing gender,” Kendall Baron, a member of the AU Women’s Initiative, stated in the email. “People are more than their sexual organs and have varied and personal relationships with their bodies.”


I think in this thread? there was the story about the ground breaking film Boys Don't Cry lesbian woman director being harassed and protested against at Reed College?

Trans activists protest lesbian filmmaker at Reed College
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ccused-of/

...
According to Jack Halberstam, a University of Southern California professor, student protestors had removed posters that advertised the event from all around campus and put up their own posters in place. In a blog post, Mr. Halberstam posted photos of the posters that read, “You don’t f—ing get it!” and “F— Your Transphobia!” A sign on the podium where Ms. Peirce was to speak read, “F— this cis white b—!!” Mr. Halberstam said.
The protesters waited until after the film had screened before interrupting Ms. Peirce’s lecture, ultimately forcing her to leave the room. Rules were established for the discussion and Ms. Peirce briefly returned to the room, only to be shouted down again, Campus Reform reported.
Students criticized Ms. Peirce for making money off a movie about trans people while not being trans herself and attacked her for casting Ms. Swank, a straight woman, to play a trans man, Mr. Halberstam said.
...


I mean where is this going? What progressive icon is next, MLK? Is he going to suddenly not be inclusive enough? Oh wait, never mind.

U of Oregon Students Debated Removing MLK Quote from Wall Because It Wasn’t Inclusive Enough

It says nothing about discrimination based on gender identity! Student leaders at the University of Oregon considered removing a famous Martin Luther King Jr. quote from a wall on its student center on the grounds that it was just not inclusive enough — because it talked only about racial discrimination and not discrimination based on stuff like gender identity. The quote has been displayed at the Erb Memorial Union (which is currently being renovated) since 1985. It’s probably something that you’ve heard before — “I have a dream that my four little children that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream . . .” — without even thinking that it might be problematic. But that’s because you’re just not as smart or culturally aware as these kids. “Diversity is so much more than race,” sophomore Mia Ashley told the Daily Emerald, the school’s official student newspaper. “Obviously race still plays a big role,” she continued. “But there are people who identify differently in gender and all sorts of things like that.” According to the Emerald, the students ultimately decided not to change the quote, but “that decision was not made without some hard thought by the Student Union Board.” Oh, and it gets worse: The entire reason that quote was put there in the first place was to replace another quote that students had found offensive — one that called the university “leader in the quest for the good life for all men” — which is obviously, you know, sexist as hell. Now, I personally don’t get triggered by seeing the word “men” anywhere. But hey, what do I know? After all, I had no idea that the “I Have a Dream” speech was actually kind of transphobic. I guess you learn something new every day.


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -inclusive
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Cordelia » Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:06 pm

A letter to syndicated advice columnist Carolyn Hax in the WaPo this week:

Dear Carolyn: My sister-in-law has a daughter and a son and has always wanted to avoid bringing them up in traditional gender roles. Relatives were told not to give her daughter anything pink. The girl got signed up for martial arts at a young age while the boy got signed up for ballet. That kind of thing.

I have no problem with that, but in the last couple of years, my nephew has become the stereotypical boy who loves trucks and football and hates princess movies, and my sister-in-law is increasingly snapping at him every time he expresses a preference for “boy things.” This culminated on Sunday in my nephew saying he was excited about the Super Bowl, and his mom yelling at him.

Really, he’s getting screamed at by his mom because he wanted to do something that 100 million other Americans were going to do.

She seems to think she has failed — or our culture has failed their family — just because her son enjoys doing things other boys enjoy.

So, what can I do about this? I did tell her after the yelling on Sunday that I thought she had overreacted and she admitted she probably had. But, I worry about my nephew. My niece seems to be allowed to enjoy whatever she enjoys without my sister-in-law viewing it as a Statement About Gender Roles, but for some reason the same doesn’t apply to my nephew.

— Boy Being a Boy


Boy Being a Boy: Disclaimer: Her kid, so, her right to be complete bonehead about raising him. Within obvious limits of course.

But she does seem to have confided in you somewhat, or at least shown some willingness to listen — plus “screamed at” is so extreme for just wanting to watch a game that the kid could use an advocate.

So bring up the kid’s Super Bowl interest, or a more recent example: “You’ve worked hard to break gender norms, and I get why. But wasn’t the whole point to let the kids decide who they are vs. letting society tell them? And so when you correct him for liking something, how is that different from society doing it?”

Maybe she’ll see it as overstepping and push back, but if you (1) acknowledge her original intent and (2) phrase it as a question, you at least give her room to see it as conversation starter more than a criticism.

If she’s receptive, then make your observation about the daughter’s apparent freedom to like girl things. It’s important.

So, er, good luck!

I hope your nephew got to see the game. Holy Bowly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 9b7f5680fc



Thirty years I knew someone who, once anyway, dressed her five year old son in a flowered smock dress and painted his nails pink so he’d ‘experience how it feels' to be a girl. It didn’t seem harmless even then. Life is already fraught w/enough confusion, tumult and pressure for children and teens, without their personal 'gender identity’ inflicted on them by a disturbed parent and society (parents using their children like this scares me more).

A question a friend recently encountered on a routine grade school level application . “Which gender does your child identify as?”
The greatest sin is to be unconscious. ~ Carl Jung

We may not choose the parameters of our destiny. But we give it its content. ~ Dag Hammarskjold 'Waymarks'
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Sounder » Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:37 pm

Cordelia wrote...
Thirty years I knew someone who, once anyway, dressed her five year old son in a flowered smock dress and painted his nails pink so he’d ‘experience how it feels' to be a girl.

Cherry picking maybe, but still.....

This is irony stretched so far it becomes humor. How can the worst stereotypes stand in for what it is to be a woman?

This may have something to do with centuries of unconscious programming to disrespect women. No doubt many women have also internalized disrespect for women and this tactic for fighting the 'good fight' may be the result.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby brekin » Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:51 pm

Cordelia » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:06 pm wrote: Life is already fraught w/enough confusion, tumult and pressure for children and teens, without their personal 'gender identity’ inflicted on them by a disturbed parent and society (parents using their children like this scares me more).
[/i]


Word. A lot this debate seems less about acceptance and choice than power.
Alfred Adler had a lot to say about this.
In fact, if one looks at his thoughts on 1. inferiority compensation 2. psychic hermaphroditism 3. masculine protest 4. style of life 5. final fiction life goal, of neurotics and the neurotic family, I think it explains a lot of why some people are not content with asserting their choice (or be advocates for others choice or oppression), but seek to dominate the terms of debate, what language people can use, how they can behave, where they are allowed to be, how everyone should be identified, any hesitation or disagreement as violence or complicity, etc.

Adler believed that some people become mired in their “inferiority”; he felt that we are all born with a sense of inferiority (as children are, of course, smaller and both physically and intellectually weaker than adults), which is often added to by various “psychological inferiorities” later (being told we are dumb, unattractive, bad at sports, etc.) Most children manage these inferiorities by dreaming of becoming adults (the earliest form of striving for perfection), and by either mastering what they are bad at or compensating by becoming especially adept at something else, but for some children, the uphill climb toward developing self-esteem proves insurmountable. These children develop an “inferiority complex”, which proves overwhelming over time.

To envision how an inferiority complex can mount until it becomes overwhelming, imagine the way many children flounder when it comes to math: At first they fall slightly behind, and get discouraged. Usually, they struggle onward, muddling through high school with barely-passing grades until they get into calculus, whereupon the appearance of integrals and differential equations overwhelms them to the point they finally give up on math altogether.

Now, apply that process to a child’s life as a whole; a feeling of general inferiority seeds doubt which fosters a neurosis, and the youngster becomes shy and timid, insecure, indecisive, cowardly, etc. Unable to meet his or her needs through direct, empowering action (not having the confidence to initiate such), the individual often grows up to be passive-aggressive and manipulative, relying unduly on the affirmation of others to carry them along. This, of course, only gives away more of their power, makes their self-esteem easier to cripple, and so on.

Of course, not all children dealing with a strong sense of inferiority become shy and timid and self-effacing; some develop a superiority complex, in a dramatic act of overcompensation. These young people often become the classic image of the playground bully, chasing away their own sense of inferiority by making others feel smaller and weaker, but may also become greedy for attention, drawn to the thrill of criminal activity or drug use, or heavily biased in their views (becoming bigoted towards others of a certain gender or race, for example).

http://journalpsyche.org/alfred-adler-p ... ty-theory/

I think one of the main problems is many who suffer from inferiority complexes are being tutored online by others with inferiority complexes and are collectively creating neurotic styles of life and highly neurotic fictional final goals, individually and socially, which they want society to adhere to, instead of compromising or conforming to society. Their inferiority complex needs an internal alibi and external tormentor(s) to justify and legitimize their victim-hood and frustration. So issues of identity, sensitivities, trauma, stress, triggering, and marginalization, etc. become ways to win power over others, by making them de facto perpetrators.

As there are less and less traditional, common mass media focus points with shared norms and role models - I think we are seeing the beginning of the rise of the neurotic revolutionary parties on all sides of the spectrum - through the splintering, sharpening, concentrating and 24/7 feedback loop of like neurotic styles of life. Freud said War was psychoanalysis in reverse - but that dude never saw Youtube.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby liminalOyster » Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:30 am

Reddit Science is doing a week-long series on the medicine/biology of Trans stuff.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:12 pm

This video is an entertaining way to learn about RadFem reasoning re: why transwomen aren't women and don't belong in feminism.



“You Are a Woman Hater. It’s Just That Simple.”

August 28, 2017
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/201 ... at-simple/

God this is good. Mancheeze critiques some YouTube dickhead’s video about how much he hates women and how women should pretend otherwise. I watched his video last week and it was as boring and offensive as you’d expect, but I could listen to Mancheeze go on forever. I nearly busted a gut laughing my ass off. She killed it. Five stars! True feminist entertainment.

"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:33 am

A lot has been happening.
A 60 year old woman was assaulted by a transactivist at Speakers Corner in London followed by an onslaught of online death and rape threats to feminists by transactivists.

"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:13 am

Misogynistic leftist men are hiding behind MRA trans-activists to spew their hatred against women. (see bolded text near the end of the article) Without the support of liberal "progressives" trans could not get away with this hate speech and public violence. And the transactivists never denounce the men who really are killing transwomen, they only go after feminists who don't agree with them on all their political points.


‘TERF’ isn’t just a slur, it’s hate speech
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/09/ ... te-speech/

The term “TERF” is not just used to smear and deride, but to incite violence.
September 21, 2017 by Meghan Murphy

Image

Adolf Hitler addressing Nazi rally

Last week, a 60-year-old woman was beaten up at Speaker’s Corner by several men. She was there with a group of women, who had chosen the historic corner of Hyde Park as a meeting place, before heading off to a talk called, “What is Gender.” The men who punched and kicked Maria MacLachlan had come to protest the women on account of their interest in feminism and in discussing the way new conversations and legislation around “gender identity” could impact the women’s movement and women’s rights. The protestors did not frame their anger and inflammatory rhetoric in this way, though. Instead, they labelled the women “TERFs” (trans exclusionary radical feminists) — a word that has come to signify a modern witch: to be silenced, threatened, harassed, punched, and — yes — killed.

The idea that feminists who question the notion of “gender identity” should be beaten and murdered has very rapidly become accepted by self-described leftists. We’re not just talking about Twitter eggs, here. Men with large platforms who are publicly associated with Antifa and groups like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have amplified the “punch TERFs” and “TERFs get the guillotine” message proudly, with the support of their comrades. In reference to The Handmaid’s Tale, many have taken to saying “TERFs get the wall.”

--to see more threatening tweets against Meghan Murphy click on link to original article--

The comparison is a surprisingly (and frighteningly) truthful admission in terms of the intent of these men. “The wall” in The Handmaid’s Tale is where executed bodies are hung, often with placards around their necks that read “Gender Treachery.” The dead bodies serve as a warning to others: do not rebel, do not fight back, do not reject the patriarchal order of things. And this is precisely what these men who use the term “TERF” are saying to women: obey our rule or you will be punished.

Rather than condemning the violence at Speaker’s Corner, numerous trans activists and self-identified leftist men have celebrated and encouraged it.

Image
Image
Image
Image


While some will claim the word “TERF” is neutral, it’s use demonstrates the opposite. It is not a word that women have claimed for themselves — like “slut,” “cunt,” or “bitch,” “TERF” is a word imposed on women to shut them up, bully them, condemn them, smear them, humiliate them, and dismiss them. But more than that: it is a threat. If I think about the times in my life I have been called these words — cunt, bitch, slut — by a man, I have almost always felt the threat of violence behind them. The spitting rage behind those words — the desire to follow through with a punch — is too often present. I have always known these words are used against me as an explicit reminder: you are subordinate. No matter how confident, tough, self-assured, strong, or brave a woman is, these words still put her in her place.

The term, “TERF,” is itself is an intentional manipulation, intended to reframe feminist ideas and activism as “exclusionary,” rather than foundational to the women’s liberation movement. In other words, it is an attack on women-centered political organizing and the basic theory that underpins feminist analysis of patriarchy.

For example, those of us called “TERF” are labelled as such for numerous crimes, including:

Understanding that women are members of an oppressed class of people (a sex class or caste, as feminists like Kate Millett and Sheila Jeffreys have called it)
Challenging the notion of innate or internal gender
Having conversations about “gender identity”
Questioning whether or not children should begin the process of transitioning
Associating with or defending women who have been labelled “TERF”
Understanding that the root of women’s oppression and male supremacy is in biological sex
Understanding that gender is imposed, and is oppressive/exists to create a hierarchy between men and women.
Questioning dogma and mantras like “transwomen are women”
Supporting woman-only space
Disputing an ideology that claims “male” and “female” are not a material reality

These things are not only not criminal, but are at the root of feminism. In other words, in order to understand how patriarchy works, you must first understand who is a member of the dominant class and who is a member of the subordinate class. You must understand that male violence against women is systemic. You must understand that women are not inherently “feminine,” and that men are not inherently “masculine.” You must be willing to have critical conversations and ask challenging questions about the status quo, about dominant ideology, and about political discourse. You must understand that patriarchy began as a means to control women’s reproductive capacity, and that, therefore, women’s biology is very much central to their status as “less than.” You must understand that feminism is a woman-centered movement, and that women have the right to meet and to organize amongst themselves, without members of the oppressor class (men), to advocate toward their own liberation.

What people are saying when they say “TERF” is “feminist.” It is “uppity woman.” What they mean when they say “exclusionary” is not, as is often claimed, “exclusive of trans-identified people,” but “exclusive of males.” Gender non-conformity is welcomed in feminism — feminism is about not conforming to gender norms. If we were interested in conforming, we would, as is often suggested to us, sit down and shut up.

While “TERF” has always been a slur, what has become clear of late is that it is no longer just that: it is hate speech.

Deborah Cameron, a feminist linguist and professor in language and communication at Oxford, explains that there are key questions we must ask to determine whether a term constitutes a slur, such as:

Has the term been imposed or has it been adopted voluntarily by the group the term has been applied to?
Is the word commonly understood to convey hatred or contempt?
Does the word have a neutral counterpart which denotes the same group without conveying hatred/contempt?
Do the people the word is applied to regard it as a slur?

Considering the answers to these questions — that, yes, the term has been imposed on feminists, it is always understood as pejorative, it does have a neutral counterpart (i.e. one could just use the term “feminist”), and feminists have consistently stated that the term is a slur — “TERF” is undoubtedly that. Considering that women are the primary target of this slur and that it is commonly attached to threats of (and, as of late, real-life) violence, there is something more we must now contend with.

Following the violent incident at Speaker’s Corner (which was no accident — one of the perpetrators had publicly expressed his intention to “fuck some terfs up”), I have received hundreds of death threats from men online. I’m not alone, either. Any woman who challenged men’s celebration or defense of the violence at Speaker’s Corner became a target. All of these threats have been attached to the term, “TERF.” Feminists have been labelled in this way specifically to dehumanize them, to spread outrageous lies about their politics (claiming feminists want to kill trans-identified people or that they advocate genocide), to reframe them as oppressors of males who identify as gender non-conforming, and to paint them, generally, as evil witches, therefore deserving of violence.

Image
Image
Image
Image
more tweets at original article
Image
Image


Proliferating lies about and dehumanizing an oppressed group of people in order to justify abuse is a longtime strategy of racists and xenophobes. Hitler used these tools to commit genocide against the Jews. Indeed, propaganda was a key tool of the Nazis in their efforts to spread antisemitism, quell dissent, and turn people against one another. German newspapers printed cartoons and ads depicting antisemitic images and messages.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it,” was Hilter’s guiding mantra. He trusted that people wouldn’t think for themselves and would simply act out of fear or intellectual laziness, jumping on bandwagons without thoroughly questioning the purpose and foundation of those bandwagons. The Holocaust was successful because the public went along with it — because individuals believed the myths and lies proliferated by the Nazis, and because they didn’t stand up, think critically, or push back.

While hate speech laws differ from place to place (and can be blurry), as a general rule, making statements intended to expose people to hatred or violence, or that advocate genocide, constitute hate speech.

Because feminists who challenge gender identity ideology are often (strategically) accused of advocating genocide, let’s be clear: “genocide” does not mean arguing that biological sex is a real thing, challenging the idea that femininity and masculinity are innate, or suggesting certain spaces should be for women and girls alone. What genocide does mean is: killing members of an identifiable group or deliberately inflicting conditions of life aimed to bring about the physical destruction of an identifiable group.

In other words, suggesting that feminists should all be destroyed, fired from their jobs, forced into homelessness, harassed, silenced, removed from society, abused, and sent to the Gulag.

Under the law, advocating or promoting genocide is an indictable offence. Likewise, those who promote hatred against an identifiable group or communicate statements in public that incite hatred or violence against an identifiable group that are likely to lead to a breach of the peace (i.e. for example: what happened at Speaker’s Corner) are guilty of an indictable offense.

But these laws are hard to enforce. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. We should not be charging people willy-nilly for things they say on Twitter. What we most certainly should be doing is holding men to account for inciting violence against women and holding media and other institutions to account for normalizing hate speech.

So, beyond the law, let’s talk about accountability. When the media normalizes hate speech, they become culpable. A publication would not use the n-word to describe a black person or the word “kike” to describe a Jewish person. This is because we know that these terms reinforce racism and justify discrimination and/or abuse against particular groups of people who have been historically and systemically oppressed. When the media, institutions, and authorities become aware that a particular term is being used to incite violence against women, it is their responsibility to condemn or simply refrain from encouraging the use of that language.

And yet we have seen various media outlets using the term uncritically, of late.

The fact that the vast majority of those connecting the word “TERF” to threats of violence, death, and genocide are men is notable. The word has been offered up to those who identify as leftists, who have been, on some level, prevented from making misogynistic statements publicly or otherwise advocating violence against women. Their “progressive” credentials meant that they had to maintain a facade of political correctness. But because women labelled “TERF” have been compared to Nazis and bigots, and because trans activism claims to be allied with the interests of the marginalized (despite its overt anti-feminism and individualist ideology), these leftist men have a socially acceptable excuse. Indeed, they seem to revel in it. It’s as if they were given the green light to scream “bitch” (or perhaps “witch” would be more accurate, considering the targeting of specific unruly women to “punch”… or burn…) over and over again, cheered on by their comrades.

If “TERF” were a term that conveyed something purposeful, accurate, or useful, beyond simply smearing, silencing, insulting, discriminating against, or inciting violence, it could perhaps be considered neutral or harmless. But because the term itself is politically dishonest and misrepresentative, and because its intent is to vilify, disparage, and intimidate, as well as to incite and justify violence against women, it is dangerous and indeed qualifies as a form of hate speech. While women have tried to point out that this would be the end result of “TERF” before, they were, as usual, dismissed. We now have undeniable proof that painting women with this brush leads to real, physical violence. If you didn’t believe us before, you now have no excuse.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Sounder » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:59 am

Heaven Swan wrote....
The term, “TERF,” is itself is an intentional manipulation, intended to reframe feminist ideas and activism as “exclusionary,” rather than foundational to the women’s liberation movement. In other words, it is an attack on women-centered political organizing and the basic theory that underpins feminist analysis of patriarchy.


This is key, the reframing is proof of bad intent. The top down nature of these 'gender rules' is indicative of social engineering rather than social evolution.

Fallon Fox (MMA) is no transgender revolutionary, he is reinforcing the rights and prerogative of men to beat up women.

Same with the TERF baiters, PC misogyny.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Sounder » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:53 am

I'm thinking about thin skinned and self-righteous folk this morning so this thread seems good for a bump.

Heaven Swan wrote...
The fact that the vast majority of those connecting the word “TERF” to threats of violence, death, and genocide are men is notable. The word has been offered up to those who identify as leftists, who have been, on some level, prevented from making misogynistic statements publicly or otherwise advocating violence against women. Their “progressive” credentials meant that they had to maintain a facade of political correctness. But because women labelled “TERF” have been compared to Nazis and bigots, and because trans activism claims to be allied with the interests of the marginalized (despite its overt anti-feminism and individualist ideology), these leftist men have a socially acceptable excuse. Indeed, they seem to revel in it. It’s as if they were given the green light to scream “bitch” (or perhaps “witch” would be more accurate, considering the targeting of specific unruly women to “punch”… or burn…) over and over again, cheered on by their comrades.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby MacCruiskeen » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:37 pm

Trans teenager Lily Madigan voted in as a Labour women’s officer

Lucy Bannerman November 20 2017, 12:01am, The Times

Image
Lily Madigan, 19, won the vote in Rochester and Strood, in Kent

A transgender teenager who demanded the removal of a female Labour member from her post as women’s officer over her allegedly “transphobic” views has been elected to the post in her local Labour party.

Lily Madigan, 19, who was born male but identifies as a woman, claims she is the first transgender woman to be women’s officer, after winning the vote in Rochester and Strood, in Kent.

Her appointment highlights the battle being fought between transgender activists, who believe gender should be a matter of self-declaration, and critics who claim that the very category of “woman” is being erased to appease the demands of a minority group.

Labour Party rules state that “the women’s officer must be a woman”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tran ... -mwchkhzq8


Thread:

JoeyJune‏ @JoeyJune2
5 hours ago

The newly elected women's officer, complete with blow job pose and rape jokes. And this is the individual women are supposed to turn to for help and support.
Image

https://twitter.com/JoeyJune2/status/932625157285466113


"Rape.com/savillessapprentice". Sic.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Sounder » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:18 pm

This goes to show that a whole lot of people like drinking Kool-Aid, with a government approved American Dream flavor, opium enhanced no doubt.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Sounder » Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:25 am

Electing a rape fantasist who happens to be trans, surely is no way to 'help' the trans community.

Why do the 'rights' of a small minority who 'act' like women trump the rights of women, a much larger group?

Again, AD cannot answer to the criticism because if emotionalism is removed from the equation, common sense may prevail.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby MacCruiskeen » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:32 pm

MacCruiskeen wrote:
Trans teenager Lily Madigan voted in as a Labour women’s officer

Lucy Bannerman November 20 2017, 12:01am, The Times

Image
Lily Madigan, 19, won the vote in Rochester and Strood, in Kent

A transgender teenager who demanded the removal of a female Labour member from her post as women’s officer over her allegedly “transphobic” views has been elected to the post in her local Labour party.

Lily Madigan, 19, who was born male but identifies as a woman, claims she is the first transgender woman to be women’s officer, after winning the vote in Rochester and Strood, in Kent.

Her appointment highlights the battle being fought between transgender activists, who believe gender should be a matter of self-declaration, and critics who claim that the very category of “woman” is being erased to appease the demands of a minority group.

Labour Party rules state that “the women’s officer must be a woman”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tran ... -mwchkhzq8


Thread:

JoeyJune‏ @JoeyJune2
5 hours ago

The newly elected women's officer, complete with blow job pose and rape jokes. And this is the individual women are supposed to turn to for help and support.
Image

https://twitter.com/JoeyJune2/status/932625157285466113


"Rape.com/savillessapprentice". Sic.


I want to be an astronaut, I am an astronaut, I have always been an astronaut.

Image

Image

Thread: https://twitter.com/whatakerfuffle/stat ... 3567368193
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests