4 ms·

I don't believe that either the Republicans or the Democrats are defending women, no. They're both patriarchal institutions that are misogynistic in different w

I don't believe that either the Republicans or the Democrats are defending women, no. They're both patriarchal institutions that are misogynistic in different ways. > They do not, nor has anyone, "demanded everything that's been set up for women now has to include any male who says he's a woman". Sorry but you have been misinformed, this is the currently the actual progressive position. And it has led to horrifying outcomes when enacted into law, such as SB132 in California which allows imprisoned men to transfer to the women's prisons if they claim to be women: https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-california-womens-prison-cdcr-confirms-pregnancy https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-... > These labels, man and woman, are flexible social labels, not the rigorous biological category they've convinced simpletons to believe in as some sort of personal axiom. No, what you're describing is a sexist redefinition of woman and man. There's really no need for it. It just reifies sex-role stereotypes.

mptest 2y ago
>both sides bad Yeah, but one is way worse. >law about criminals You said "everything". "Everything" is what I'm challenging. No serious effort is made to force women to make any concessions, except by the party that is restricting their medical autonomy. And I guess prisoners? You've certainly got me there, but I don't think I've ever stated a good word about the correctional system. What you link is a specific law covering a pretty specific category of people, ones already in jail. Not exactly "demanding everything women have be man's"... You're not going to hear anyone who holds progressive political beliefs tout our countries approach to criminal correction. We house like 20% of the world's prisoners with 4% of the population. Of course prisons are rife with horrible stuff. >No, what you're describing is a sexist redefinition of woman and man. There's really no need for it. It just reifies sex-role stereotypes By saying the definitions are flexible I'm somehow reinforcing rigorous gender role stereotypes? That's about as non sequitor as it gets. At the dr, in prisons, sure, get all biological. But for the rest of us normal people, it does not matter which genitals the person shitting in the stall next to me has. And it never will.
- scrubadub 2y ago
  > What you link is a specific law covering a pretty specific category of people, ones already in jail. Not exactly "demanding everything women have be man's"... Why do you think that law was passed in the first place? It's because the current progressive position is that any male who says he's a woman should be allowed to access any service or space that was created solely for women. This isn't just limited to prisons. Another recent instance: Title IX is being redefined in this way, which according to the UN will discriminate against and disadvantage women and girls in educational settings: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/04/united-states-redefinition-sex-title-ix-will-foster-more-violence-and https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/04/united-state... > By saying the definitions are flexible I'm somehow reinforcing rigorous gender role stereotypes? Yes. If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes? When a male says he identifies as a woman, what exactly is he identifying with? You can't identify with a body you don't have, so what could he actually be identifying with, if not these stereotypes?
  - mptest 2y ago
    >Why do you think that law Because misogynist and patriarchal (agree with you there) dumbass dems over correct when they finally pick an issue to do something about? See also: latinx. It's dumb and bad, but the other side is still way worse. >If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes? Oh idk, maybe who they are as an individual? What they stand for? What they like and dislike?? such a debate brained take Your question put another way: "If the female body isn't what defines a person as a woman, what is left but sexist stereotypes?" That's you brother, not us. That's what YOU think remains when you take biological categorization out of the picture. Which is why people caught by the "omg trans people exist and want to be protected too" panic like yourself end up at this weird need for rigid binary gender when intersex and trans people been existing for a long time before you lot were taught to hate/fear them by fox news
    - scrubadub 2y ago
      > Because misogynist and patriarchal (agree with you there) dumbass dems over correct when they finally pick an issue to do something about? Yes, so you agree with me then. As I said in my first comment, this is policy overreach by progressives. They've ended up pushing policy that enables any male who says he's a woman to access any space that was intended to be only for women. This harms women and girls. > > If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes? > Oh idk, maybe who they are as an individual? What they stand for? What they like and dislike?? I think you misunderstood the question. At least, I hope it's not your view that likes and dislikes are what distinguish women as a class from men as a class, and vice versa, because that wouldn't make any sense at all.

mptest 2y ago

>both sides bad Yeah, but one is way worse. >law about criminals You said "everything". "Everything" is what I'm challenging. No serious effort is made to force women to make any concessions, except by the party that is restricting their medical autonomy. And I guess prisoners? You've certainly got me there, but I don't think I've ever stated a good word about the correctional system. What you link is a specific law covering a pretty specific category of people, ones already in jail. Not exactly "demanding everything women have be man's"... You're not going to hear anyone who holds progressive political beliefs tout our countries approach to criminal correction. We house like 20% of the world's prisoners with 4% of the population. Of course prisons are rife with horrible stuff. >No, what you're describing is a sexist redefinition of woman and man. There's really no need for it. It just reifies sex-role stereotypes By saying the definitions are flexible I'm somehow reinforcing rigorous gender role stereotypes? That's about as non sequitor as it gets. At the dr, in prisons, sure, get all biological. But for the rest of us normal people, it does not matter which genitals the person shitting in the stall next to me has. And it never will.

scrubadub 2y ago
> What you link is a specific law covering a pretty specific category of people, ones already in jail. Not exactly "demanding everything women have be man's"... Why do you think that law was passed in the first place? It's because the current progressive position is that any male who says he's a woman should be allowed to access any service or space that was created solely for women. This isn't just limited to prisons. Another recent instance: Title IX is being redefined in this way, which according to the UN will discriminate against and disadvantage women and girls in educational settings: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/04/united-states-redefinition-sex-title-ix-will-foster-more-violence-and https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/04/united-state... > By saying the definitions are flexible I'm somehow reinforcing rigorous gender role stereotypes? Yes. If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes? When a male says he identifies as a woman, what exactly is he identifying with? You can't identify with a body you don't have, so what could he actually be identifying with, if not these stereotypes?
- mptest 2y ago
  >Why do you think that law Because misogynist and patriarchal (agree with you there) dumbass dems over correct when they finally pick an issue to do something about? See also: latinx. It's dumb and bad, but the other side is still way worse. >If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes? Oh idk, maybe who they are as an individual? What they stand for? What they like and dislike?? such a debate brained take Your question put another way: "If the female body isn't what defines a person as a woman, what is left but sexist stereotypes?" That's you brother, not us. That's what YOU think remains when you take biological categorization out of the picture. Which is why people caught by the "omg trans people exist and want to be protected too" panic like yourself end up at this weird need for rigid binary gender when intersex and trans people been existing for a long time before you lot were taught to hate/fear them by fox news
  - scrubadub 2y ago
    > Because misogynist and patriarchal (agree with you there) dumbass dems over correct when they finally pick an issue to do something about? Yes, so you agree with me then. As I said in my first comment, this is policy overreach by progressives. They've ended up pushing policy that enables any male who says he's a woman to access any space that was intended to be only for women. This harms women and girls. > > If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes? > Oh idk, maybe who they are as an individual? What they stand for? What they like and dislike?? I think you misunderstood the question. At least, I hope it's not your view that likes and dislikes are what distinguish women as a class from men as a class, and vice versa, because that wouldn't make any sense at all.